The court dismissed the writ petition seeking transfer of a murder investigation to the CBI. It held that the case was not exceptional enough for CBI jurisdiction and the local agency must continue the investigation.
The writ petition was dismissed; the investigating agency is directed to continue the investigation.
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.
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
RESERVED ON : 23rd APRIL, 2018 DECIDED ON : 18th MAY, 2018
AWUNGSHI CHIRMAYO & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.Colin Gonsalves, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Olivia Bang with Ms.Pragya Singh, Advocates.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel with Mr.Jamal Akhtar, Advocate for State. Mr.Sanjeev Bhandari, SPP with Mr.Prateek Kumar, Advocate for CBI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.
W.P.(Crl.) 1364/2013 Page 1 of 10
landlord lived on the ground floor of three storey building, adjacent to the premises occupied by the victim. On 29.05.2013, the victim was found dead in her rented accommodation. The landlord gave intimation to PCR on 29.05.2013 and it came to be recorded as DD No.20A at around 11.48 a.m. The investigation was assigned to SI Dinesh who along with other police staff reached the spot. The door of the room was broken open and the victim was found dead in the room with injury marks on her face and toe. Empty wrappers of sixteen tablets of Spasmocip Plus and ten tablets of Meftal Spas were found in the dustbin of the victim’s room. The CFSL team visited the spot and inspected the crime scene; it took photographs. The local police seized various exhibits.
W.P.(Crl.) 1364/2013 Page 2 of 10
of senior doctors of Delhi Government was constituted; the second post-mortem examination of the body was conducted on 04.06.2013. Certain questions were asked at the instance of the victim’s relatives from the concerned doctors. Cause of death was kept pending.
W.P.(Crl.) 1364/2013 Page 3 of 10
victim and her murder. However, none of them was taken into custody for interrogation. The floor plan showed that the landlord and his brother-in-law had access to the residence of the deceased by climbing over a seven feet iron grill and through the side door. They had also the key of the front door of the premises. The side door did not have any automatic closing lock; it had to be closed manually from inside. The landlord and his brother-in-law had an antagonistic relationship with the deceased. Amit Sharma was pushing himself for a sexual relationship with the deceased which was repulsed by her. On 23.05.2013 and 24.05.2013, the victim during her stay with the petitioners had informed them about her harassment by Amit Sharma. The victim was particularly upset as she was called to the residence of the landlord on the pretext to show him as to how to feed the fishes in the fish tank in the landlord’s house. There Amit Sharma caught her hand tightly and pushed her down on a chair and started telling her not to be afraid of him and that if she had any problem or could not pay the rent, he would look after it. The victim was very scared and managed to extricate herself to return to her room. The petitioners advised the victim to stay away from Amit Sharma and not to interact with him in any manner. It is further urged that Bernice - victim’s sister who lived with her also informed that Amit Sharma used to stalk the deceased; he would constantly watch her and keep calling her on the mobile. One morning in April, there was heated argument between Amit Sharma and the deceased over payment of broker’s charges. A few days later Amit Sharma apologized but continued to stalk her.
W.P.(Crl.) 1364/2013 Page 4 of 10
W.P.(Crl.) 1364/2013 Page 5 of 10
circumstantial evidence. The involvement of the landlord and his brother-in-law was suspected by the victim’s relatives. Status reports filed on various dates from time to time reveal that both of them were associated in the investigation and were interrogated on several occasions. The polygraph tests were conducted on 27.12.2013 and 30.12.2013. Their blood samples were taken to find out if it matched with the semen found on the undergarments of the deceased. DNA profiling, however, revealed that the human semen was not that of the landlord or his brother-in-law. It is informed that various individuals of the locality were examined, however, no evidence has emerged to implicate the landlord or his brother-in-law. Third Medical Board was constituted on 17.09.2014; cause of death has remained unascertained. 12. It is also not at issue that the victim had telephonic conversation with Amit Sharma only on one occasion. During investigation, the call details of the mobile No. 8376987377 of the deceased were analyzed and it was found that she had made telephone call to Amit Sharma on his mobile No.9811357876 three times on the night intervening 20/21.05.2013 at 03.19 a.m., 03.20 a.m. and 03.22 a.m. for a very short duration. It was found that the said calls were made by the victim to Amit Sharma to get keys to the main entry gate. The investigating agency did not find any other conversation or SMS exchanged between the victim and Amit Sharma.
W.P.(Crl.) 1364/2013 Page 6 of 10
landlord for any such sexual assault. Status report reveals that these allegations were not mentioned by the petitioners in their complaint dated 29.05.2013 given to the investigating agency.
W.P.(Crl.) 1364/2013 Page 7 of 10
talked to Leimichon on her phone number of times inviting her to join her and her boyfriend for lunch. She did not do. On that day at around 03.00 p.m. The victim and her boyfriend went to Leimichon’s house. At 04.30 p.m., the deceased called Leimichon and told her that she had an argument with her boyfriend and that he had left the premises. At 07.30 p.m., Leimichon called the deceased over her mobile but it was busy. She went to her residence at around 08.30 p.m. The deceased declined to open the door; Leimichon then immediately left the premises. At about 09.30 p.m. the same day, victim’s boyfriend went to her house and on his way back between 09.30 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. he met Leimichon’s sister Rinsophy Kaping and informed her that the victim had not opened the door despite his knocking at it and did not get any response. Apparently, something had happened on 28.05.2013 which compelled the victim not to open the door even to Leimichon and her boyfriend Angam. 18. Angam was not available to join the investigation soon after the incident. He did not lodge any complaint along with his other friends from North-East States for the murder of his girlfriend. He remained absconding and despite best efforts by the police he could not be traced. The petitioners who were aware about the identity of the victim’s boyfriend i.e. Angam did not disclose as to at what call centre he used to work, if so, since when. It was also not revealed as to where he used to reside, and if yes, since when. The investigating agency visited Angam’s native place many times but his whereabouts could not be found. The petitioners had provided different telephone numbers but these were found not to be issued in the name of Angam.
W.P.(Crl.) 1364/2013 Page 8 of 10
The needle of suspicion revolves around Angam’s involvement and the circumstance of abscondance is a strong piece of evidence against him. Status report reveals that the photos of the victim’s boyfriend have been shown to his possible acquaintance at several places; the photographs have been placed on record. However, he could not be found. The police teams have visited Imphal (Manipur) too.
W.P.(Crl.) 1364/2013 Page 9 of 10
(S.P.GARG) JUDGE
MAY 18, 2018 / tr
W.P.(Crl.) 1364/2013 Page 10 of 10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the investigation in the murder case warrants transfer to the CBI given the alleged lack of progress and suspicion against the landlords.
Whether the allegations of political nexus with the local police justify special investigation agency under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic RightsReferred¶20
State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, 2010 (3) SCC 571 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Awungshi Chirmayo & Anr.
Govt. of NCT & Ors.
S. P. Garg
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
