Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala High Court P&H High Court Denies Pensionary Benefits for Work-Charged Employee's Widow; Declares Work-Charged Service Not Eligible for ACP or Pension Benefits Acquittal is Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Orders Appointment of Candidate Denied Job Over Past FIR At The Bail Stage, Culpability Is Not To Be Decided; Allegations Must Be Tested During Trial: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in SCST Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to "Secular" and "Socialist" Additions in Constitution Preamble Supreme Court Rejects Res Judicata in Land Allotment Case: Fresh Cause of Action Validates Public Interest Litigation Public Resources Are Not Privileges for the Few: Supreme Court Declares Preferential Land Allotments to Elites Unconstitutional Past antecedents alone cannot justify denial of bail: Kerala High Court Grants Bail Revenue Records Alone Cannot Prove Ownership: Madras High Court Dismisses Temple's Appeal for Injunction Humanitarian Grounds Cannot Undermine Investigation: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Interim Bail in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will

No Stone Should Be Left Unturned' in Probe of Judicial Officer’s Wife’s Death: Supreme Court

09 September 2024 3:59 PM

By: sayum


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has overturned a Chhattisgarh High Court decision and directed the CBI to conduct a thorough investigation into the death of Ranjana Diwan, emphasizing the need for transparency and fairness in light of alleged undue influence by her husband, a senior judicial officer.

The Supreme Court has ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take over the investigation into the death of Ranjana Diwan, who was found dead under suspicious circumstances in 2016. The Court set aside the Chhattisgarh High Court’s order, which dismissed the petition for a CBI probe, and emphasized the need for an independent investigation due to allegations of bias and undue influence. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, underlines the significance of ensuring a fair investigation, especially when senior judicial officers are involved.

Ranjana Diwan, wife of Manvendra Singh, a senior judicial officer, was found dead on May 12, 2016, under circumstances initially classified as a suicide by the police. The deceased had six ante-mortem injuries, which raised suspicions. Her family, including her mother and brother, alleged foul play and argued that Manvendra Singh used his position to influence the investigation. The police concluded that Diwan's death was due to suicide, but the family, dissatisfied with the closure report, consistently sought a fair probe, alleging manipulation in the post-mortem process and other key aspects of the investigation.

After several failed attempts to have an FIR lodged and an independent investigation initiated, the family filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. This petition was dismissed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, which suggested that the appellants pursue statutory remedies available under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Dissatisfied, the family approached the Supreme Court, seeking relief.

The Supreme Court noted several suspicious aspects surrounding the death of Ranjana Diwan, particularly the six ante-mortem injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report. The injuries, coupled with the nature of her death, warranted a deeper investigation. The appellants had long contested the conclusion of suicide, asserting that the respondent, Manvendra Singh, had exerted undue influence to manipulate the outcome of the investigation.

The Court expressed concern over the role of the state police in investigating the matter. The family had repeatedly alleged that local authorities, under the influence of the respondent, failed to conduct a fair investigation. The Supreme Court acknowledged that these claims of bias were troubling, particularly in light of the respondent’s position as a senior judicial officer.

"The powers of this Court for directing further investigation, regardless of the stage of investigation, are extremely wide," the Court emphasized. It reiterated that in cases where the fairness of the investigation is questionable, particularly when it involves a high-ranking judicial officer, it becomes crucial to hand over the case to an independent agency to maintain public confidence.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Vikram Nath referred to similar cases where the Court had directed the CBI to take over investigations due to unresolved suspicions or undue influence. The Court cited the landmark decision in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, emphasizing that a CBI probe should be ordered in exceptional circumstances to ensure justice. The judgment also referred to Bharati Tamang v. Union of India, where a CBI investigation was ordered due to concerns over the impartiality of the local police.

The Court focused on the principles of fair investigation, noting that unresolved questions and a perceived lack of impartiality in the initial police inquiry necessitated the intervention of the CBI. "Unresolved crimes tend to erode public trust in institutions established for maintaining law and order," the bench observed, emphasizing the need for a transparent investigation free from external influence.

The Court also reiterated that the involvement of an independent investigative agency like the CBI would not only ensure fairness but also dispel any doubts in the minds of the appellants and the public at large. This step, the Court reasoned, was essential for preserving the integrity of the judicial system.

Justice Vikram Nath, in his ruling, noted, “It is true that the power to direct CBI to conduct an investigation is to be exercised sparingly, but the extraordinary circumstances of this case, coupled with allegations of bias and undue influence, leave us with no option but to order an independent investigation.” He further added, “Criminal investigation must be both fair and effective. We are of the view that such a direction needs to be issued in the present case to uphold the principle of justice.”

The Supreme Court’s directive to the CBI to conduct an independent investigation into the death of Ranjana Diwan is a significant development in the case. By overturning the High Court’s decision, the apex court has highlighted the importance of a fair investigation, especially when there are allegations of undue influence involving a senior judicial officer. The decision is expected to have wider implications, reinforcing the need for impartiality and transparency in sensitive cases, particularly those involving public officials.

Date of Decision: September 6, 2024​.

Mandakini Diwan & Anr. v. High Court of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Similar News