Supreme Court Upholds Conviction as Husband Failed to Explain Wife’s Death in Matrimonial Home  ||  Supreme Court: Crime Scene Re-Enactment Does Not Always Violate Right Against Self-Incrimination  ||  Supreme Court: Cognizance Taken Without Hearing Accused under BNSS Section 223 is Void Ab Initio  ||  Supreme Court Upholds Will in Sister’s Favour, Says Excluding Natural Heirs is Not Suspicious  ||  Delhi HC: Absence of Public Witnesses and Videography in NDPS Recovery Relevant for Bail Decisions  ||  Raj HC Initiates Suo Motu Cognizance Over Severe Water Crisis in Jodhpur, Issues Interim Directions  ||  Del HC: Courts Cannot Direct, Monitor Inquiry Into Police Delay in Investigation After Bail Decision  ||  Supreme Court: After the BNSS, a Pre-Cognizance Hearing is Mandatory in PMLA Cases  ||  SC: Landowners Cannot be Forced to Waive Statutory Compensation to Claim Other Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Banks are Lenient With Big Borrowers But Strict With Ordinary Loan Applicants    

Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana & Ors. - (29 Jan 2016)

Imperium of Constitutional Courts cannot be stifled

Criminal

Whereas the Supreme Court recently rejected a petition asking for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation into an alleged iron ore mining scam, it was anything but reticent allowing it in the instant case. In preceding proceedings, the High Court, determining whether it could transfer investigation of a crime to the CBI, had relied on the principle of “stage”. Despite irregularities in conduct of the police, the court had accepted that since trial had commenced and several witnesses had been examined investigation could not be transferred to the CBI.

The Supreme Court, in light of investigative deficiencies and irregularities, ruled that “stage” of proceedings could not be allowed as stumbling blocks to reinvestigation. Reviling the loss of democracy “if a citizen feels, the truth uttered by a poor man is seldom listened to”, it placed courts’ duties of upholding the truth and law as uppermost. As such, Constitutional Courts could not be fettered into accepting trial based on an unfounded investigation. In the instant case, material witnesses to the crime had not been examined and irregularities in police departments had been found.

Relevant : State of West Bengal and Ors. v. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors. MANU/SC/0121/2010 Prof. K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai and Ors.MANU/SC/0842/2013

Tags : REINVESTIGATION   CBI   IRREGULARITY   SC/ST  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved