Karnataka HC Orders CBI Probe Into Ex-Zilla Panchayat President's Murder, Slams Police Agency Over Shoddy Investigation
The Karnataka High Court recently directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a de-novo investigation into the murder of M. Srinivas, a former President of Zilla Panchayat, Kolar District.Justice M Nagaprasanna was of the view that the local police conducted the investigation "recklessly". He noted that, considering the magnitude of the case and the way in which...
The Karnataka High Court recently directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a de-novo investigation into the murder of M. Srinivas, a former President of Zilla Panchayat, Kolar District.
Justice M Nagaprasanna was of the view that the local police conducted the investigation "recklessly". He noted that, considering the magnitude of the case and the way in which the investigation was conducted, the case ought to be transferred to the CBI for a fresh investigation.
“In cases of the nature of the subject crime which is an alleged daylight murder, the investigation cannot be recklessly done, as is done in the case at hand. If the glaring lacunae is considered, it does not inspire even a modicum of confidence in the conduct of investigation by the Investigating agency (local Police) or the CID. The very essence of justice is threatened when those entrusted with its pursuit, falter so gravely. A case of such magnitude cannot be allowed to perish under the weight of a shoddy investigation.”
The petition was filed by Srinivas' wife, Dr S Chandrakala, seeking transfer of the case to the CBI. She submitted that Srinivas, a politician and a prominent man, had several rivals and that he was killed by giving supari to others. She contended that neither the local police nor the CID can do justice to the investigation and that it must be handed over to an independent investigating agency like the CBI.
The FIR in the case was registered based on a complaint from Srinivas' driver. On 23-10-2023, Srinivas, along with the complainant,t reached a construction site for inspection. About 6 people came to the said spot on bikes carrying a cement bag and one of those 6 people came to shake hands with Srinivas to greet him. By then, the other person sprayed pepper spray on Srinivas' face, took out a knife, talwars from the cement bag and assaulted him. Srinivas later succumbed to injuries.
Initially, the local police investigated the case. However, Srinivas' wife/petitioner suspected the involvement of others in her husband's murder. She thus requested a change of investigating agency under the apprehension that pressure would be mounted upon local police, as the deceased had many political rivalries. Subsequently, the State government transferred the case to CID. The petitioner then made a representation to the Chief Minister and Home Minister to transfer the investigation to the CBI on the ground that the CID only adopted the investigation of local Police and did not conduct an independent investigation.
Pursuing the investigation records, the High Court stated that there were common lapses in both the investigations carried out by the local police and CID. It noted that the mahazars were not videographed, no blood test of the accused was not conducted and no investigation was conducted to trace the movement of the accused prior to the incident. It also noted that the Investigating Officer did not make any effort to recover the weapon, though the accused themselves said that they threw the weapon near a pond in a field. It further noted that Section 161 CrPC statements of eye witnesses were recorded after a delay of 5 and that statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C.was recorded after a delay of 16 days.
The Court observed that the local police and the CID "miserably failed to inspire even a semblance of confidence in the conduct of investigation, which erodes public confidence in the conduct of investigation particularly in murder cases."
Even the Special Public Prosecutor accepted the flaws in the investigation and submitted that the local police of the CID had not done enough to unearth the truth. Noting that the Special Public Prosecutor appointed in the case was candid in accepting the grave lacunae in the investigation, the Court pointed out "He submits that it is a sorry state of affairs where the investigation is carried out in this manner in a case of murder. He would make these submissions notwithstanding the fact that he is appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor to prosecute the case on behalf of the State. He would submit that he cannot defend such investigations."
The Court further noted that even the CID is not an independent investigating agency in strict sense. It stated that CID is an an investigating wing of the State, where every officer except the detectives are from the general wing of the Police. The Court therefore stated that it was necessary for an independent agency to conduct the investigation.
Stating that de-novo investigation was imperative in the case, the Court observed, "In the facts and circumstances of the case, noticing the fulcrum of the investigation, the subject case emerges as a classic illustration for transfer of investigation to CBI, not for conduct of further investigation, but for conduct of de-novo investigation. The said direction is not merely warranted, it is imperative, as both the local Police and the CID have completely drowned the whispers of truth into deep waters by slipshod investigations. Therefore, the entire investigation is required to be transferred to the CBI for its conduct de novo."
With these observations, the Court allowed the petition and transferred the case to CBI for fresh investigation.
Appearance: Senior Advocate Sandesh J Chouta a/w Advocate Sanya Malli for Petitioner.
SPP C.H Hanumantharaya a/w Additional SPP B N Jagadeesha FOR R-1 AND R-3.
SPP P Prasanna Kumar FOR R-2.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 145
Case Title: Dr S Chandrakala AND State of Karnataka & ANR Case No: WRIT PETITION No.24360 OF 2024