Inadequate Investigation and Premature Filing of Final Report Warrant De Novo Investigation by Specialized Agency

The Petitioner’s brother, a nursing student, was found dead in his hostel room on 17.11.2025.

While the college authorities and police claimed it was a case of suicidal hanging, the Petitioner alleged murder, citing injuries found during the post-mortem, an intact door bolt, and the delayed seizure of the deceased’s belongings.

Chandaka P.S. Case No. 523 was registered under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the BNS.

Investigation was pending when the I.O. submitted a "Final Report - Mistake of Fact" on 28.02.2026, despite not having received the SFSL/viscera reports and failing to examine a key accused named in the FIR.

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction for proper investigation.

1. Whether the investigation conducted by the local police was biased, hasty, or procedurally deficient so as to warrant a de novo investigation by a specialized agency.

2. Whether the Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to direct a fresh investigation after a Final Report has been submitted.

The Court relied on Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing that a "fair investigation" is a fundamental right.

It applied the principles from Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, holding that a vitiated or biased investigation cannot give rise to a valid charge sheet and justifies interference by the High Court to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

It further cited Bharati Tamang v. Union of India, which affirms the Court’s power to direct a de novo investigation or transfer a case to an independent agency like the CBI even after a charge sheet/final report is filed, if the original probe is perceived to be deficient or intended to shield culprits.

The Court identified several "gaps and question marks" in the investigation: (i) the failure to examine Arman Raj Parida, a named accused; (ii) the submission of the Final Report before receiving SFSL/viscera results; (iii) discrepancies in medical findings regarding whether the deceased’s mouth was open or closed; (iv) non-compliance with supervision instructions dated 26.02.2026 prior to closing the case; and (v) the lack of any attempt to establish a motive for the alleged suicide.

The Court observed that the I.O. acted with "unjustified haste" in filing a Final Report while the matter was sub judice before the High Court and while no accused were in custody.

The Court concluded that such a "one-sided" and "hasty" probe necessitated the intervention of a specialized agency to ensure transparency.

It directed the I.I.C. of Chandaka Police Station to hand over the case diary and all records to the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Bhubaneswar, within ten days. The Crime Branch is directed to nominate a competent officer to conduct a thorough investigation into the death. The CRLMP was accordingly disposed of.