Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

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.

Latest Legal News