Petitioner sought complete transfer of investigation in a murder case to CID/CBI citing lie detector test report. High Court found no deficiencies in existing investigation. Rejected transfer plea and directed trial court to conclude pending trial expeditiously.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
spb/-
1
wp491-11.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 491 OF 2011
Shri Dhondu Rajaram Chavan ... Petitioner. V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents.
Mr. Uday Warunjikar i/by Balagi B. Ranashur or the Petitioner. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : P. V. HARDAS & M.N.GILANI,JJ. DATE : 24TH MARCH, 2011.
P.C.
1 This is a petition by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ for transferring the investigation of Crime No. 33/2007 registered by the Malvan Police Station, Dist. Sindhudurg to either CID or CBI.
2 It appears that the son of the petitioner was murdered and thereafter a charge-sheet against the accused came to be filed on 04.12.2007. It further appears that subsequent thereto, certain tests came to be conducted which are popularly known as “Lie Detector Test”. The petitioner contends that the report in respect of this test, particularly, the report in respect of the brain electrical oscillation signature profiling reveals that the accused on whom test came to be performed was the assailant. The petitioner, therefore, submitted an application before the trial court on 17.02.2010, requested the court to take further action
2
spb/-
wp491-11.sxw
pursuant to the receipt of the report and directed the further investigation either to the CID or to the CBI with a further direction that the accused may be taken in the custody and he may be interrogated after obtaining the police custody remand.
3 The trial court by the order, though has not been impugned in the present petition, dated 16.10.2010 rejected the aforesaid application. The trial court while examining the request of the applicant for referring the further investigation either to CID or CBI came to the conclusion that there were no deficiencies in the investigation so as to order further investigation particularly, in the light of the reports which had been received and also held that the question about the admissibility and the conclusiveness of the report of the tests of “Lie Detector Test” would be examined subsequently during the trial.
4 In the light of the fact that the trial court has left that question open to be decided at the trial, we refrain from making any observation in respect of the evidenciary value of the report of lie detector test. We have perused the material which has been annexed to the petition and the aforesaid material does not in any manner indicate that the investigation was either deficient or that the receipt of the report would open door for further investigation. We, therefore, do not find any necessity whatsoever for transferring the investigation i.e. further investigation either to the CID or to CBI. In that light of the matter, there is no merit in the petition. The writ petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs.
spb/-
3
wp491-11.sxw
5 In the light of the fact that the trial has been pending since, 2007, we think that it would be appropriate if the trial court decides the trial in accordance with the law as expeditiously as possible.
[M.N.GILANI,J.] [P.V. HARDAS, J.]
3 issues framed by the court
Whether investigation should be furthered by transferring it to CID or CBI in a murder case.
Whether the PETitioner is entitled to a writ directing transfer of investigation despite absence of deficiencies.
Whether directions can be issued for expeditious conclusion of a pending trial.
Dhondu Rajaram Chavan
State of Maharashtra
P. V. Hardas
M. N. Gilani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
