### Complainant may lead evidence of murder during trial if suicide investigation is contested.

The petitioner, Santosh Nisad, filed a writ petition seeking an independent investigation (CID/CBI/SIT) into the death of his 18-year-old son, Suraj Nisad.

The police initially registered Merg No. 60/2025 following the discovery of the body, and a forensic report dated 23/07/2025 cited the cause of death as asphyxia due to partial hanging.

While the post-mortem report suggested the death was suicidal in nature.

Witness statements indicated a prior physical assault by the accused persons, Ankit Nishad and Shyam Sundar.

Consequently, an FIR (Crime No. 445/2025) was registered under Sections 118 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

A charge sheet was subsequently filed under Sections 108 (Abetment of suicide) and 3(5) of the BNS, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court, where trial is currently pending.

Whether a fresh investigation by an independent agency is warranted when the petitioner alleges murder but the police have filed a charge sheet for abetment of suicide.

Whether the petitioner can seek a remedy for the alleged misclassification of the crime (murder vs. suicide) during the ongoing trial.

The Court's decision revolved around the procedural powers of the Trial Court during the recording of evidence and the transition from the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (specifically Section 194 regarding inquests and Section 173 regarding FIRs) to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (Sections 108 and 118).

It applied the principle that if evidence emerges during a trial suggesting a different or more serious offense than the one charged, the Trial Court is empowered to proceed in accordance with the law to ensure justice.

The Court evaluated the State’s contention that a thorough investigation had already been conducted, leading to the arrest of two individuals and the commencement of Trial No. 263/2025.

The petitioner argued that the investigation was flawed because it treated a "murder" as a "suicide," thereby limiting the scope of prosecution.

The Court reasoned that since the trial was already in progress and the complainant (petitioner) had not yet recorded their statement, a parallel independent investigation was not necessary at this stage.

The Court noted that the petitioner has the opportunity to lead evidence during the trial to substantiate the claim of murder.

If the Trial Court, upon reviewing such evidence, finds that a case for murder is prima facie made out, it possesses the legal authority to alter the charges or proceed accordingly.

It held that the petitioner is at liberty to lead evidence regarding the alleged murder during the sessions trial.

The Court directed that if the Trial Court, based on evidence, finds the petitioner’s allegations of murder to be substantiated, it shall proceed in accordance with the law.

The Court clarified it expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.