Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Maintenance Must Reflect Financial Realities and Social Standards: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Interim Maintenance in Domestic Violence Land Classified as Agricultural Not Automatically Exempt from SARFAESI Proceedings: High Court Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Lack of Independent Witnesses Undermines Prosecution: Madras High Court Reaffirms Acquittal in SCST Case Proceedings Before Tribunal Are Summary in Nature and It Need Not Be Conducted Like Civil Suits: Kerala High Court Affirms Award in Accident Claim Affidavit Not Sufficient to Transfer Title Punjab and Haryana High Court

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