# POOJA PAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS - **Citation:** [2016] 11 S.C.R. 560 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2016 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 77 of2016 - **Bench:** V. Gopala Gowda, Amitava Roy - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/pooja-pal-v-union-of-india-and-ors-31173 - **Pages:** 54 ## Headnote Constitution of India - Arts.20, 21 and 32 - Remedial intervention - Murder - Entrustment of investigation to an C i11stru111entality other than the local I State police agencies - Appellant's husband gunned down in a public place in broad daylight .,- Deceased was a sitting ML.A. of U.P. State Assembly, having defeated respondent no.5, in the bye elections held a few months earlier - In the FIR filed by the appellant soon after the incident, she named respondent no.5 to be the assailant who shot D appellant's husband in the head, being acco111panied by others -At that time, respondent no.4, brother of respondent no.5 ·was a member of the Parliament - Allegation of appellant that respondenr no.4 was involved in the conspiracy to eliminate her husband - Writ petition filed by appellant seeking investigation by CBI into the E incident on ground of perceived involvement of the State administration and the police in particula1; in the perpetration of th"e cri111e and their passive and indifferent disposition in taking steps as required in law - Dismissed by High Court - Held: If investigation is neither effective nor purposeful nor objective nor fair, it would be the solemn obligation of the courts, if considered ·F necessary, to order further investigation or re-investigation as the case may be, to discover the truth so as to prevent miscarriage of justice - No inflexible guidelines or hard and fast rules as such can be prescribed by way of uniform and universal invocation - The decision is to be conditioned to the attendant facts and circumstances G - On facts, notwithstanding pendency of the trial, and availability of power of the courts below u/ss.311 and 391 CrPC rlw s.165 of the Evidence Act, CBI directed to undertake a de-nova investigation in the incident in view of the exceptional features of the case, and in order to rule out any possibility of denial of justice to the parties and 111ore i111portantly to instill and sustain the confidence of the H 560 POOJA PAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. community at large - CBI to submit report before trial court, within six months - Trial court to thereafter conduct and conclude the trial within six months - Criminal law - Investigation. Administration of Justice - Judiciary - Purpose of - Held: A court of lmv has to be an involved participant in the quest for truth and justice and is not expected only to officiate a formal ritual in a proceeding forseeing an inevitable end signaling travesty of justice. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. As fundamentally, justice not only has to be done but also must appear to have been done, the residuary jurisdiction of a court to direct further investigation or reinvestigation by any impartial agency, probe by the state police notwithstanding, has to be essentially invoked if the statutory agency already in-charge of the investigation appears to have been ineffective or is presumed or inferred to be not being able to discharge its functions fairly, meaningfully and fructuously. As the cause of justice has to reign supreme, a court of law cannot reduce itself to be a resigned and a helpless spectator and with the foreseen consequences apparently unjust, in the face of a faulty investigation, meekly complete the formalities to record a foregone conclusion. Justice then would become a casualty. Though a court's satisfaction of want of proper, fair, impartial and effective investigation eroding its credence and reliability is the precondition for a direction for further investigation or reinvestigation, submission of the charge-sheet ipso f(lc/o or the pendency of the trial can by no means be a prohibitive impediment. The contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have to be singularly evaluated and analyzed to decide the needfulness of further investigation or reinvestigation to unravel the truth and mete out justice to the parties. [Para 76] [604-D-H; 605-A] 561 A B c D E F 1.2. It is judicially acknowledged that fair trial includes fai ## Text _Characters 0–39,983 of 132,413. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39983 for what follows._ A B [2016] 11 S.C.R. 560 POOJA PAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 77 of2016) JANUARY22, 2016 [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ,] Constitution of India - Arts.20, 21 and 32 - Remedial intervention - Murder - Entrustment of investigation to an C i11stru111entality other than the local I State police agencies - Appellant's husband gunned down in a public place in broad daylight .,- Deceased was a sitting ML.A. of U.P. State Assembly, having defeated respondent no.5, in the bye elections held a few months earlier - In the FIR filed by the appellant soon after the incident, she named respondent no.5 to be the assailant who shot D appellant's husband in the head, being acco111panied by others -At that time, respondent no.4, brother of respondent no.5 ·was a member of the Parliament - Allegation of appellant that respondenr no.4 was involved in the conspiracy to eliminate her husband - Writ petition filed by appellant seeking investigation by CBI into the E incident on ground of perceived involvement of the State administration and the police in particula1; in the perpetration of th"e cri111e and their passive and indifferent disposition in taking steps as required in law - Dismissed by High Court - Held: If investigation is neither effective nor purposeful nor objective nor fair, it would be the solemn obligation of the courts, if considered ·F necessary, to order further investigation or re-investigation as the case may be, to discover the truth so as to prevent miscarriage of justice - No inflexible guidelines or hard and fast rules as such can be prescribed by way of uniform and universal invocation - The decision is to be conditioned to the attendant facts and circumstances G - On facts, notwithstanding pendency of the trial, and availability of power of the courts below u/ss.311 and 391 CrPC rlw s.165 of the Evidence Act, CBI directed to undertake a de-nova investigation in the incident in view of the exceptional features of the case, and in order to rule out any possibility of denial of justice to the parties and 111ore i111portantly to instill and sustain the confidence of the H 560 POOJA PAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. community at large - CBI to submit report before trial court, within six months - Trial court to thereafter conduct and conclude the trial within six months - Criminal law - Investigation. Administration of Justice - Judiciary - Purpose of - Held: A court of lmv has to be an involved participant in the quest for truth and justice and is not expected only to officiate a formal ritual in a proceeding forseeing an inevitable end signaling travesty of justice. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. As fundamentally, justice not only has to be done but also must appear to have been done, the residuary jurisdiction of a court to direct further investigation or reinvestigation by any impartial agency, probe by the state police notwithstanding, has to be essentially invoked if the statutory agency already in-charge of the investigation appears to have been ineffective or is presumed or inferred to be not being able to discharge its functions fairly, meaningfully and fructuously. As the cause of justice has to reign supreme, a court of law cannot reduce itself to be a resigned and a helpless spectator and with the foreseen consequences apparently unjust, in the face of a faulty investigation, meekly complete the formalities to record a foregone conclusion. Justice then would become a casualty. Though a court's satisfaction of want of proper, fair, impartial and effective investigation eroding its credence and reliability is the precondition for a direction for further investigation or reinvestigation, submission of the charge-sheet ipso f(lc/o or the pendency of the trial can by no means be a prohibitive impediment. The contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have to be singularly evaluated and analyzed to decide the needfulness of further investigation or reinvestigation to unravel the truth and mete out justice to the parties. [Para 76] [604-D-H; 605-A] 561 A B c D E F 1.2. It is judicially acknowledged that fair trial includes fair investigation as envisaged by Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution G of India. Though, well demarcated contours of crime detection and adjudication do exist, if the investigation is neither effective nor purposeful nor objective nor fair, it would be the solemn obligation of the courts, if considered necessary, to order further investigation or reinvestigation as the case may be, to discover H ' 562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016111 S.C.R. A the truth so as to prevent miscarriage of the justice. No inflexible guidelines or hard and fast rules as such can be prescribed by way of uniform and universal invocation and the decision is to be conditioned to the attendant facts and circumstances, motivated dominantly by the predication of advancement of the cause of B justice. (Para 79) (605-E-H) c D E F G H Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Am: v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 158 : 2004 (3) SCR 243; State of West Bengal and others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic .Rights, West Bengal and others (2010) 3 SCC 571 : 2010 (2) SCR 979; Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and others (2010) 12 SCC 254 : 2010 (11) SCR 857; Mohd. Hussain alias Julfikar Ali v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2012) 9 SCC 408 : 2012 (10) SCR 480; Bharati Tamang v. Union of India and others (2013) 15 SCC 578 : 2013 (14) SCR 525; State of West Bengal and others v. Sampat Lal and others (1985) 1 SCC 317 : 1985 (2) SCR 256; Vineet Narain and others v. Union of India and another (1996) 2 SCC 199 : 1996 (1) SCR 1053; Union of India and others " Sushi/ Kumar Modi and others (1998) 8 SCC 661; Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India and others (1999) 6 SCC 667 : 1999 (3) SCR 1279; Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural E1rgineering Services, U.P. and Others v. Sahngoo Ram Arya and Anr. (2002) 5 SCC 521; Disha v. State of Gujarat . & Ors. (2011) 13 sec 337 : 2011 (9) SCR 359; K. V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai and Ors. (2013) 12 SCC 480 : 2013 (9) SCR 199; Hussainara Khatoon & others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81 : 1979 (3) SCR 169; Abdul Rehman Antulay and others v. R.S. Nayak and another (1992) 1 SCC 225 : 1991 (3) Suppl. SCR 325; P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578; Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (2009) 3 SCC 355 : 2009 (1) SCR 517; Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Administration and another 1988 (Suppl.) SCC 482 : 1988 SCR 700; Gudalure M.J. Cherian and others v. Union of India and others (1992) 1 SCC 397 : 1991 POOJA PAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (3) Suppl. SCR 251; Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, Chandigarh through its Secretary v. State of Punjab and others (1994) 1 SCC 616 : 1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 915; Inder Singh v. State of Punjab and others (1994) 6 SCC 275 : 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 573; Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat and others (2010) 2 SCC 200 : 2010 (1) SCR 991; K. Saravanan Karuppasamy and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (2014) (10) SCC 406 : 2014 (7) SCR 1149; Sudipta Lenka v. State of Odisha and Others. (2014) 11 SCC 527 : 2014 (3) SCR 693; Jennison v. Baker (1972) 1 All ER 997; Karnel Singh v. State of MP. (1995) 5 SCC 518 : 1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 629; Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar & others (1998) 4 SCC 517 : 1998 (2) SCR 1097; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 : 1994 (2) SCR 375; State of MP. v. Bhooraji and others (2001) 7 SCC 679 : 2001 (2) Suppl. SCR 128; Manu Shar111a v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1 : 2010 (4) SCR 103; State of Bihar and another v. JAC Saldanha and others (1980) 1 SCC 554 : 1980 (2) SCR 16; Vinay Tyagi v Irshad Ali @ Deepak and others (2013) 5 SCC 762 : 2012 (13) SCR 1005; Sa111aj Parivartan Samudaya and others v. State of Karnataka and others (2012) 7 SCC 407 : 2012 (5) SCR 1074; Rattiram and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 516 : 2012 (3) SCR 496; National Human Rights Commission v. State of Gujarat and others (2009) 6 SCC 767 : 2009 (7) SCR 236; Maria Marp;arida Sequeira Fernandes and others v. Eras1110 Jack De Sequeira (dead) through L.Rs (2012) 5 SCC 370 : 2012 (3) SCR 841; Ritesh Tewari and another v. State of U.P. and others (2010) 10 SCC 677 : 2010 (11) SCR 589; Jones v. National Coal Board (1957) 2 All ER 155(CA) Vinod Kumqr v. State of Puniab (2015) 3 SCC 220 : 2015 (1) SCR 504 Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 sec 532 - referred to. Criminal Investigation - Basic Perspectives by Paul B. Weston and Renneth M Wells - referred to. 563 A B c D E F G H 564 A B c D E F G SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 11 S.C.R. 2.1. Reverting to the facts, the gruesome and sordid assassination of the appellant's husband in broad day light under the public gaze is not in dispute. As a consequence of the murderous assault with firearms and indiscriminate use thereof, appellant's husband (Raju Pal) along with two others fell to the bullets. Records seem to suggest that even prior to the incident, attempts were made on his life but he survived the same in view of the timely intervention of the security guards. That representations were made by him seeking additional protection and that after his murder, the appellant and the party higher ups of Raju Pal had persistently appealed, amongst others, to the Governor and the Chief Minister of the State for handing over the investigation to the CBI is also testified by the records. [Para 90) [609-G-H; 610-A) 2.2. Pleaded imputations of the appellant include deliberate, uncalled for and mysterious replacement of the earlier sets of personal security officers/gunners of the deceased, presence of high police officials near the place of occurrence, indifference on the part of the state police to act with alacrity, hasty conduct of the post mortem of the dead body and cremation thereof without handing over the same to the appellant or any of his relatives, political pressure on .the investigating agency to distort the course of the probe and to screen the incriminating evidence collected etc. One of the Investigating Officers in his writ petition, questioning his suspension had also pleaded on oath about the unexpected and unwarranted interference of the higher ups in the department to withhold evidence gathered in course of the investigation underway. Though nothing decisively turn on these accusations, the same having been refuted by the respondents, the fact remains that the appellant's husband had been mercilessly killed by a group of gun wielding assailants in a public place, in the open view of all concerned. Such a daring and desperate act did have a terrorizing impact on the society sending shock waves amongst all cross sections of the community and received wide coverage by the media. The incident understandably is not one to be lightly glossed over or trivialized. [Para 91) [610-B-El 2.3. The trial on the basis ofthe investigation completed . hitherto by the State police and the CBCID has remained stayed H POOJA PAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. by the orders of this Court. Prior thereto however as per the materials laid before this Court, several eye-witnesses cited by the investigating agency have been examined. They seem to have resiled from their statements under Section 161 of CrPC. Having regard to the manner in which the offence had been committed, it is incomprehensible that there was no eye-witness to the incident. Thus, if the persons cited as eye-witnesses by the investigating agency retract from their version made before the police, then either they have been wrongly projected as eyewitnesses or they have for right or wrong reasons resiled from their earlier narration. In both the eventualities, the investigation has to be faulted as inefficient, incomplete and incautious with the inevitable consequence of failure of the prosecution in the case in hand. Such a fall out also spells a dismal failure of the state machinery as a pivotal stake holder in the process of justice dispensation to protect and assure the witnesses of their safety and security so to fearlessly testify the truth. However, these observations are by no means suggestive of the complicity of the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 and other accused persons standing trial. The very fact that this Court had earlier stayed the trial while permitting the appellant to approach the High Court with the relief for assignment of the investigation to the CBI does signify its expectation that the High Court would adopt a sensitive insight into the is~ues raised and appropriately address the same. The pendency of the trial and the examination of the witnesses so far made thus is not a disarming factor for this Court, to consider the necessity of entrusting the investigation to the CBI even at this stage. [Para 92] (610-E-H; 611-A-E) 3.1. The present factual conspectus leaves one with a choice either to let the ongoing trial casually drift towards its conclusion with the possibility of offence going unpunished or to embark upon investigation belated though, spurred by the intervening developments, to unravel the truth, irrespective of the persons involved. As it is, every offence is a crime against the society and is unpardonable, yet there are some species of ghastly, revolting and villainous violations of the invaluable right to life which leave all sensible and right minded persons of the society shell shocked and traumatized in body and soul. Such incidents 565 A B c D E F G H 566 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2016l 1 l S.C.R. mercifully rare though are indeed exceptionally agonizing, eliciting resentful condemnation of all and thus warrant an extra-ordinary attention for adequate remedial initiatives to prevent their recurrence. Even if such incidents otherwise diabolical and horrendous do not precipitate, national or international ramifications, these undoubtedly transcend beyond the confines of individual tragedies and militatively impact upon the society's civilized existence. If the cause of complete justice and protection of human rights are the situational demands in such contingencies, order for further investigation or reinvestigation, even by an impartial agency as the CBI ought to be a peremptory measure in the overwhelming cause of justice. [Para 93] (611-F-H; 612-AB] 3.2. Judged in these perspectives, this Court is of the firm opinion that notwithstanding the pendency of the trial, and the availability of the power of the courts below under Sections 311 and 391 of CrPC read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act, it is of overwhelming and imperative necessity that to rule out any possibility of denial of justice to the parties and more importantly to instill and sustain the confidence of the community at large, the CBI ought to be directed to undertake a de novo investigation in the incident. In the unique facts and circumstances of the case any contrary view would leave the completed process of crime detection in the case wholly inconsequential and the judicial process impotent. A court of law has to be an involved participant in the quest for truth and justice and is not ex1>ected only to officiate a formal ritual in a proceeding forseeing an inevitable end signaling travesty of justice. Mission justice so expectantly and reverently entrusted to the judiciary would then be reduced to a teasing illusion and a sovereign and premier constitutional institution would be rendered a suspect for its existence in public estimation. Considering the live purpose for which judiciary exists, this would indeed be a price which it cannot afford to bear under any circumstance. [Para 94) [612-B-E] 4.1. In the wake of the above, the CBI is entrusted, with the task of undertaking a de novo investigation in the incident of murder of Raju Pal, the husband of the appellant. However, it is made abundantly clear that this direction for entrustment of the POOJA PAL v. UNION OF INDlA AND ORS. investigation to the CBI anew has been made in view of the exceptional features of the case as overwhelmingly demonstrated by attendant facts and circumstances indispensably necessitating the same. [Para 95) [612-F, G-H; 613-A) 4.2. The call of justice however demands, that the CBI in spite of the constraints that it may face in view of the time lag, would make all possible endeavours to disenter the truth through its effective and competent investigation and submit the same before the trial court, as early as possible preferably within the period of six months. On receipt of the report by the CBI only, the trial court would proceed therewith in accordance with law and conduct and conclude the trial expeditiously and not later than six months. The interim order staying the ongoing trial is hereby made absolute. [Para 96) [613-B-CJ Case Law Reference 2004 (3) SCR 243 referred to Para 32 2010 (2) SCR 979 referred to Para32 2010 (11) SCR 857 referred to Para32 2012 (10) SCR 480 referred to Para32 2013 (14) SCR 525 referred to Para32 1985 (2) SCR 256 referred to Para35 1996 (1) SCR 1053 referred to Para35 0?98) 8 sec 661 referred to Para35 1999 (3) SCR 1279 referred to Para35 (2Q02) 5 sec 521 referred to Para35 2011 (9) SCR 359 referred to Para35 2013 (9) SCR 199 referred to Para35 1979 (3) SCR 169 referred to Para35 1991 (3) Suppl. SCR 325 referred to Para 35 (2Q02) 4 sec 578 referred to Para35 20Q~ (1) SCR 517 referred to Para 35 567 A B c D E F G H 568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 11 S.C.R. A 1988 SCR 700 referred to Para 35 1991 (3) Suppl. SCR 251 referred to Para35 1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 915 referred to Para 35 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 573 referred to Para 35 B 2010 (1) SCR 991 referred to Para 35 2014 (7) SCR 1149 referred to Para 36 2014 (3) SCR 693 referred to Para 36 (1972) 1 All ER 997 referred to Para 52 c 1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 629 referred to Para 54 1998 (2) SCR 1097 referred to Para 54 1994 (2) SCR 375 referred to Para 57 2001 (2) Suppl. SCR 128 referred to Para 57 D 2010 (4) SCR 103 referred to Para 64 1980 (2) SCR 16 referred to Para 67 2012 (13) SCR 1005 referred to Para 81 E 2012 (5) SCR 1074 referred to Para 82 2012 (3) SCR 496 referred to Para 83 2009 (7) SCR 236 referred to Para 84 2012 (3) SCR 841 referred to Para 85 F 2010. (ll) SCR 589 referred to Para 85 (1957) 2 All ER 155(CA) referred to Para 85 2015 (1) SCR 504 referred to Para 86 (2014) 2 sec 532 referred to Para 88 G CRlMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 77 of2016. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.05.2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6209 of 2006. H POOJA PAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. R. S. Sodhi, Sr. Adv., Ms. Manisha Bhandari, Omkar Srivastava, Divyadeep Chaturvedi, Nipush M. Joshi, Ankit Kushwaha, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the Appellant. Ms. V. Mohana, P. N. Misra, Sr. Advs., Tara Chandra Sharma, K. L. Janjani, B. V. Balaram Das, D. L. Chidanand, Ms. Sunita Goutam, Ms. Sushma Suri,Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Manoj Goel, Shuvodeep Roy, S. Han if Khan, Ad vs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AMITAVA ROY, J. I. Leave granted. 2. The appellant, widow of slain Raju Pal, who at his death was a sitting M.L.A. of Uttar Pradesh State Assembly, is before this court in her relentless pursuit for securing investigation by the Central ·Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the stirring incident of murderous attack on her husband, snuffing their a week old marital tie. This is the appellant's second outing before this forum, she having been relegated earlier to the High Court, to seek the remedy at the first instance. By the decision impugned, the High Court has declined the relief sought for. 3. We have heard Mr. R. S. Sodhi, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Ms. V. Mohana, learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos. I & 2, Mr. P.N.Misra, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. Manoj Goel, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 4. The eventful factual backdrop is outlined by the available pleadings. First the facts as narrated by the appellant. In the byeelections to the vacant seat of Allahabad (West) State Assembly, held in the month of October 2004, the same having been vacated on the resignation of its incumbent Atiqe Ahmed, respondent No. 4, he having been elected as a Member of Parliament from Phoolpur constituency, Allahabad, the appellant's husband was elected thereto bydefeatingthe nearest contender Mohd. Ashraf set-up by the Samajwadi Party. Whereas the appellant's husband as the candidate of the Bahujan Samaj Party (for short hereinafter referred to as "BSP.") secured 70537 votes against 65713 votes polled by the respondent No. 5, the other candidates representing the Congress and Bha11iya Janta Party fared very poorly in comparison. According to the appellant, since his defeat, Moh. Ashraf @ Khalid Azeem the respondent No. 5, along with his brother Atiqe Ahmed respondent No. 4 as well as the then Chief Minister of the State 569 A B c D E F G H 570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS r2o 16111 s.c.R. A had taken the set-back to be a matter of personal humiliation, defeat and insult so much so that the respondent No. 4 declared in public that the candidate elected would not be able to hold the seat for long. It has been alleged by the appellant that subsequent thereto, continuous attempts· were made to eliminate Raju Pal and that too with the connivance of the B c local police and at the instigation of the respondent No. 4. The appellant has asserted that as a consequence, the family members and the supporters of her husband very often were assaulted and subjected to harassment by arrests by the police and hired goons engaged by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and that their property and personal belongings were even destroyed. 5. The appellant alleged as well that the respondent No. 5 was a history sheeter against whom several cases had been lodged involving the offence of murder, but on account ofhis political clout and the following of anti-social elements, no witness would even dare to give evidence of his nefarious activities. This was more so, according to the appellant, as D he enjoyed police patronage and protection. The appellant stated that after the election of her husband as the Member of the Legislative Assembly on 16.10.2004, three abortive attempts were made on his life and the properties belonging to him and his close relatives were ransacked and taken away. The appellant mentioned that the last attempt on the E F life of her husband before the gruesome incident was made on 28.12.2004. Prior thereto amongst others, an attempt was also made in the month of November, 2004, whereafter Raju Pal did submit a representation to the Governor of the State on 04.11.2004, following which the said constitutional authority had directed an inquiry to be made. 6. According to the appellant though the Governor of the State had directed that additional security be provided to her husband, it was not done and instead his existing security staff was replaced by the State Government. Such was the animosity as alleged by the appellant, that the State Government even had withdrawn Raju Pal's official gunners for whose timely intervention, he survived the attempt on his life on G 28.12.2004 by the hired goons and henchmen of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The appellant has alleged that the two official gunners of her husband were replaced by others on the choice of the local police and the desire of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to ensure that Raju Pal does not escape the next attempt. That in connection with the incident of 28.12.2004, Raju Pal had lodged a First Information Report with the H POOJA PAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. f AMITAVA ROY, J.l police in which he had named these respondents has been stated as well. This notwithstanding, buckling under political pressure, the police even deleted the name of respondent No. 5 from the F.I.R. and made a formality of some investigation. 7. The appellant has stated that on the date of the incident i.e. 25.01.2005 at 3 P.M., her husband Raju Pal was travelling in a vehicle accompanied by his two supporters Sandeep Yadav and Devi Lal Pal. His two official gunners instead of accompanying him, and as a part of the conspired plan were travelling in the second car behind his vehicle. The vehicle in which the appellant's husband was travelling along with his friend Singh Sahib and his wife on reaching Amit Deep Maruti Agency, was intercepted and surrounded by eight persons, whereupon the respondent No. 5 Mohd. Ashraf shot him in his head. In course of the shoot-out, Sandeep Yadav, Devi Dayal Pal and the appellant's husband were seriously injured and they eventually succumbed to the injuries. The appellant has alleged that the official gunners, who were travelling in the car behind, not only did not intervene or retaliate to save Raju Pal but had abandoned their vehicle. She has alleged that reportedly, a conspiracy was hatched in this regard, at the political level in connivance with the top police officers including the Station Officer, Dhoomanganj, Shri Parshuram, C.O. (Police), Civil Lines who were then present at the spot alongwith Superintendent of PoHce (City) & Deputy Inspector General of Police, Allahabad and Atiqe Ahmad, respondent No. 4. 8. The appellant has stated as well that the assailants who were in three different vehicles, left the site of the incident after resorting to indiscriminate firing, whereupon the persons present along with the supporters of the injured took Raju Pal out of the car and tried to rush to the hospital in a three-wheeler. The appellant has mentioned that as per the account of the eyewitnesses present and as reported by the media, the assailants returned and opened indiscriminate fire on Raju Pal from a close range so as to ensure that he was dead. That a third attack was made on the injured Raju Pal from a point plank range before he could reach the hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries, has been stated in categorical terms. According to the appellant, though there were four police stations on the route to the hospital, no police officer did respond or offer to help the injured or his companions in their last minute bid to save their lives. 9. The appellant on the very same date i.e. 25.01.2005 filed the 571 A B c D E F G H 572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 11 S.C.R. A FIR at 4.30 P.M., narrating the incident and also mentioning clearly, the involvement of the respondent No. 4 as the brain behind the murder and that the respondent No. 5 had shot Raju Pal in the head. The FIR was registered as 31 /2005 dated 25.01.2005 of Dhoomanga1tj Police Station, Allahabad, U.P. under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B IPC. 8 c D E I 0. The incident received rave media coverage as would be evident from the following extract ofa news item of the daily "Times oflndia": (para No. 2lofWrit Petition) "Eyewitnesses said the assailants. who were about two dozen in numbers. came in two Tata sumos and opened indiscriminate fire when the MLA's vehicle reached the Chaufatka petrol pump. Pal, who was in the driver's seat. was hit several times in the neck. chest and stomach. His supporters immediately put him in an auto and rushed him to a private nursing home in Rain Bagh area. The assailants. however, continued firing even on the auto to ensure his death. At the Fire Brigade crossing. the assai )ants again opened fire. Just after reaching the hospital, Pal succumbed to his injuries. Two police gunners of Pal reportedly escaped from the scene. Though the assailants kept on shooting at Pal on the entire stretch between Chaufatka and the nursing home covering four police stations ofDhoomangang. Cantt. Civil Lines and Kotwali, the police failed to react." 11. The appellant has further stated that the body of Raju Pal was thereafter taken into custody by deploying heavy police force and F thereafter a show of the post mortem was done hurriedly & secretly at the Swaroop Rani Nehru Hospital at about 03.15 A.M. in the morning of 25-26/0 I /2005 without any information to the appellant or any family member and in total violation of all norms pertaining to autopsy. The appellant has stated that purposefully in order to ensure that the G prosecution case is rendered weak, .the injuries indicated in the postmortem report were described in a manner to be rendered doubtful to have been caused by the two weapons recovered i.e., one DBBL Gun and one 30 Spring Rifle. The appellant has thus stated that the charge-sheet that was eventually submitted was merely an eye-wash to save the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and their accomplices on one hand and to H POOJA PAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [AMlTAVA ROY, J.} rule out the possibility of further investigation by the CBI and in the process hush up the true facts. According to her, the dead body of the Raju Pal was thereafter cremated in the early morning of26.01 .2-005 at Daraganj crematorium, but neither prior thereto, it.was handed to the appellant nor the ashes were made available.'t() her .. As a 1nah.er' of fact, the dead body was cremated as if it was an unclaimed body though the deceased was a sitting Member of the LegislativeAssembly of the State and his identity was well known to all, concerned including the· ~Ii~ . . 12. Even the representation made by the mother of Raju Pal on 26.01.2005 to the Senior Superintendent of Police to hand overthe dead body of her son to her for final rites was not heeded too. AH fervent requests and appeals made by her in this regard failed. The appellant has alleged that not only she as a widow was given a chance to have a parting glance of the body of her husband, the dead bodies were disposed of hurriedly without any notice to her as well as other family members of Raju Pal presumably to wipe off all possible clues in support of the heinous crime. The appellant was married to the deceased Raju Pal only on 16. l ,2005 i.e; hardly a week before the tragic incident . . f3.' The appellan~ has stated as well that ha~ing regard to the perceived involvement of the state administration ind the police in particular, in the perpetration Of the. crime and their passive and indifferent disposition in laking steps as required in law, it was felt by all right mim;led quarters thafinvestigatloi1 by ti1e C.B.I. was indispensably warranted to unearth the diabolic plot arid identify the persons involved, so as to ensure an impartial and meaningful enquiry for justice. In spite of repeated representations, though submitted by the appellant herself and the then President of the BSP, U.P. before the Governor, Chief Minister, Chief Secretary etc. of the State expressing in clear terms that no impartial and dispassionate probe by the state police was possible in the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the persons involved, and that the exercise ought to be handed over to the C.BJ.,. the same did not ineet with any favourable res~n.se. . . . ·_ ... 14:. ·1iist~ad, as asserted b~the,appellant, by ~ay ofretaliation. to the pubJi9 outcry against then,1tlfkss and savage assassination of Raju Pal and his two associ~es, the p'olice authorities\vent berse~k in the enttre city arid theyforcibly trespassed into the houses:Of such residents, mercile~sly assaulted t~ein; including old wo1~en and.children, ransacked .. ·. . ' . ... . . 573 ·A B c D E F G H 574 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2016l 11 S.C.R. their belongings and threatened and intimidated them of dire consequences if they did not refrain from their agitation for a C.B.I. inquiry. This high handed action of the police force also received media coverage, both print and electronic. The writ petition further discloses that for reasons unfathomable, the investigation of the incident was soon thereafter transferred from Station House Officer, Dhoomanganj to a Police Inspector posted in another police station, in violation of the G.O. No. DG-7-S (253)/198 dated 21.03.2000. 15. While mentioning that with the installation of the Samajwadi Party in power, there was an upsurge in the crimes, the appellant has referred as well to the criminal antecedents of the respondent No. 5, tracing back to the year 1979, when he was accused of murdering a contractor in Bihar. According to her, this respondent has been booked in a number of cases under Sections 302 and 307 IPC as well as amongst others, under the Gangster Act, National Security Act and had been identified also as a member of the interstate gang in December 2002. Accusing the State Government, the above notwithstanding, of bestowing . its generosity on him as well as his brother, the appellant has also referred to a list of 20 criminal cases registered against the respondent No. 5 in which efforts were being made to withdraw the same. The list of cases, as set-out in the writ petition involves offences inter alia, under Sections 302, 307, 149, 1208 !PC as well as under the Arms Act and Gangster Act. The appellant has been candid enough to state in no uncertain terms, that though the evidence was galore against the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and their accomplices in the commission of murder of her husband, conscious and intentional steps were taken by the state administration and the police to shield them therefrom due to political and other influence wielded by them. In endorsement of this accusation, the appellant has referred to as well some excerpts from.the writ petition filed by the Station House Officer Shri Parshuram Singh in Civil Writ Petition No. 34265/2005 challenging his suspension. This police officer who was in-charge of the investigation of incident made serious allegations against the senior police officers in their attempt to efface evidence against the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and their henchmen in the following terms: (page No. 126 of Writ Petition) "25 -That, on 27.01.2005, one of the main accused Ashraf alias Khalid Azim was arrested in Lucknow and brought to Allahabad in tight security two other accused were also POOJA PAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. rAMITAVA ROY, J.l arrested by the petitioner on 30.01.2005, namely Farhan Ahmed and Ranjeet Pal and a DBBL Gun and life cartridges were recovered from their possession. True photo and typed copy of the F.I.R. and Recovery Memo are collectively enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-5, to this writ petition. 26 - That, the respondent No. 2, Shri Suni I Kumar Gupta, S.S.P., Allahabad, because of the reason better known to him. he told to the petitioner the empty cartridge of thirty spring rifle not be shown in the G.D. but the petitioner refused to do so. The respondent No. 2, Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta, S.S.P., Allahabad, also told to the petitioner that Ashraf and Atiqe not be made main accused in the case crime No. 34/05, Police Station, Dhoomanganj,Allahabad. 27 - That, on 30.01.2005, on the day of arrest of Farhan Ahmed and Ranjeet Pal, the respondent No. 2, Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta, S.S.P., Allahabad, told to the petitioner these two accused be kept in curtain (Baparda) do not produce the accused before media, the petitioner denied as the accused persons are local resident and they are publicly known criminals therefore, no meaning to put them in curtain. 28-That, the respondent No. 2, Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta, S.S.P., Allahabad, also, told the petitioner, the DBBL Gun recovered from the possession of Farhan Ahmed and Ranjeet Pal also be changed but the petitioner denied and showed the same DBBL Gun in the records which was recovered from their possession. 29 -That, the respondent No. 2, Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta, S.S.P., Allahabad, has motive to save the main accused Ashraf and Atiqe Ahmed from the charge of murder of 575 A B c D E F M.L.A, Raju Pal. The respondent No. 2, Shri Sunil Kumar 0 Gupta, S.S.P., Allahabad, handled by the political leaders of the ruling Samajwadi party and he was doing in the manner for tempering the evidence of the murder against the main accused Ashraf and Atige Ahmed as directed by leaders of ruling Samajwadi Partv. H 576 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2016]1 l S.C.R . A 30- But the respondent No. 2, Shri Sun ii Kumar Gupta, · S.S.P.; Allahabad, suspended the petitioner in the evening of 30:1.2005, alleging that the murder of Raju Pal was · occurred and he could not control the disturbances after the murder of M.L.A. Raju Pal. B 31 -That, the respondent No. 2, Shri Suni I Kumar Gupta, S.S.P., Allahabad suspended the petitioner to help the accused persons as the respondent No. 2, Shri Sun ii Gupta, S.S.P., Allahabad, several times told to change the facts that shows the interest of respondent No. 2, Shri Sunil c Kumar Gupta, S.S.P., Allahabad, in saving accused persons. 32-That, in as much as the investigation which was being carried.out by the petitioner was transferred to one Inspector, Police Station Colonelganj Inspector Surendra Singh. 33- That, the one of the main accusedAtiqeAhmed, Member D of Parliament now was released on bail and he mounted 12ressure on res12ondent No. 2. Shri Sunil Kumar Gu12ta, S.S.P., Allahabad, for transferring the Investigation Officer Ins12ector Surendra Singh and transferring the 12etitioner anx other 12Iace ahead from Allahabad. E 34- That, the Respondent No. 2, wrote a D.O. letter on 15.04.2005, to D.l.G. Range, for transferring the petitioner under suspension from District Allahabad to any other district, the re·spondent No. 2, Shri Sun ii Kumar, S.S.P., Allahabad; recommended transfer of the petitioner in the pressure of Atiqe Ahmed, Member of Parliament who is .F .qne ofthe main accused in the murder ofM.L.A. Raju Pal. True photo and typed copy of the D.O. letter dated 15.04.2005, of respondent No. 2, is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-6 to this writ petition. . 35-that, the Colonelganj Inspector Surendra Singh, who G was. the Investigating Officer in this case, was suddenly relieved of all the responsibilities and has been posted to Jhansi. At the same time, efforts were on to ensure the . removal of Dhoomanganj Station Officer the petitioner · around the time of the murder and get him posted to some H other district. ,The only fault of both these Investigating · POOJA PAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. rAMITAVA ROY, J.l Officers was that they did not succumb to the pressure exerted by their superiors and we.nt ahead with the · investigation in the right manner ___ _ According to sources, some senior police officers of the district were putting pressure on the Investigating Officer to replace the gun with some other weapon. But the investigator did not relent and forwarded the recovered pistol and the gun for a forensic test. The tests revealed that two of: the six empty cartridges, also found at the scene of crime, had been fired from the recovered. DBBL Gun. All along the course ofthe investlgatiptoacbedtbi~Court;~aflier, . · seeking its interventlelnforan· appropriate ·dirit'tfon. forinvestigatiqn of · the incident bythe CBL Thiswas, to'i'.eitera~e;as't~~~ilanfnur~ed a deep rooted impression, in view of ove~l'iehningsihisterbackground arid the sequence of events culrriinating in the gruesoine.