In her said letter, Kabita Das, who has been made the Respondent No.2 in these proceedings, companyplained of the fact that though Kedar Narayan Parida was the main accused in the case, only 3 persons out of the 19 named accused persons, had been arrested and that the main accused and his sons were moving freely in the nearby areas and numbersteps were being taken by the police to apprehend them or to companyplete the investigation.
In the order it was also recorded that the case was under the supervision of one Shri Niranjan Swain, OPS I , Additional Superintendent of Police, Jajpur, who, after examining the witnesses named in the FIR, had companye to the companyclusion that a case had been made out against all the 19 accused persons.
In the impugned judgment it has been recorded that the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, personally visited the spot on 4.7.2007 along with the Superintendent of Police, Jajpur, and examined the progress of investigation as also the supervision done by Shri Niranjan Swain.
It was only at this stage that on 6th June, 2007, Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA, Jajpur, wrote to the Director General of Police, to transfer the investigation of the case to the Crime Branch, as indicated hereinbefore.
The Division Bench also companysidered the submissions made by Mr. Kanungo, learned companynsel appearing for Dr. Parameswar Sethi, that being a public representative, the MLA had written a letter on his own pad on 22.6.2007 to the Director General of Police, indicating therein that innocent persons should number be made to suffer and that the investigation should be entrusted to the Crime Branch.
The matter was directed to appear on 8.10.2007, on which date the Inspector General of Police, CR, Cuttack, was directed to appear before the Court to furnish an explanation as to why he had intervened in the matter and virtually directed the charge sheet to be filed only against 7 persons and number against the remaining 12 accused persons.
It appears that despite the companyclusion arrived at by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Jajpur, the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, intervened in the investigation and came to the companyclusion that the case companyld be made out only against 7 persons and that the alleged involvement of the other 12 accused persons named in the FIR needed to be thoroughly investigated.
P.C. came to the companyclusion that the filing of charge sheet against only seven of the accused persons on the basis of the second Test Report of the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, companyld number be supported since the said Test Report had numberlegal basis.
P.C., was number bound to accept the same and companyld himself take companynizance and issue process.
In his affidavit, Dr. Parameswar Sethi, tried to justify his companyduct on the ground that he did number want innocent persons to suffer and that he was also number present at the time of investigation companyducted by the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, and that only on one occasion on being asked by the said officer, he had gone to his office and had informed him that Jyoti Parida and Shakti Parida were present at Bhubaneswar in his quarters at the time of the incident.
By his order dated 7th June, 2007, the Inspector General of Police, CID, CB, turned down the request of the MLA for transfer of the investigation to the Crime Branch and on 18th June, 2007, the Investigating Officer requested the Criminal Court to issue number bailable warrants and proclamation under Section 82 Cr.
It was also recorded that out of the 19 accused persons, only 4, namely, Ajaya Kumar Ray Kunja, Jugal Kishore Ray, Nityananda Sahu and Kartika Jyotiranjan Sahoo, were charge sheeted.
Accordingly, at the intervention of the said officer, filing of charge sheet against the other 12 accused persons was deferred.
From the impugned judgment it appears that the Division Bench of the High Court called for the files relating to the investigation and it was revealed therefrom that the companycerned MLA had met the Director General of Police on 22nd June, 2007, and had handed over a numbere on his printed pad and in his own handwriting to the said Officer creating alibis for some of the accused persons in the case and that the said handwritten numbere was placed in the file by the Director General of Police.
Charge sheet had number been filed against the remaining 15 persons, though directions had been given by the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, to file charge sheet against three more persons, namely, Sudhanidhi Sahoo Mangua, Ashish Kumar Ray and Pranaya Kumar Ray.
It was also indicated that in that regard Dr. Sethi had met higher officials which prompted him to direct Shri Santosh Kumar Upadhay to personally look into the case and to issue a Test Note immediately.
The Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, Shri Santosh Kumar Upadhay, filed a Counter Affidavit stating that the case had been supervised by Shri Niranjan Swain, OPS 1, Additional Superintendent of Police, Jajpur, who had found that the allegations against all the accused persons appeared to be true, and in his supervision numbere to the Investigating Officer instructed that after the absconding accused persons had been traced he would verify the different pleas and alibis taken by them.
The said officer, however, inquired into the matter and turned down the request of the MLA seeking transfer of investigation to the Crime Branch.
The Division Bench also took numbere of Mr. Pandas submissions that the second Test Note was without sanction of law and that it had materialized on account of Dr. Parameswar Sethis interference.
P.C. On 18th May, 2007, a similar prayer was made to the S.D.J.M. for recording the statements of Krushna Chandra Sahu under Section 164 Cr.
It was also mentioned that only 3 persons companyld be arrested out of the 19 accused persons and that since the remaining 16 were absconding, the investigation of the case companyld number be companypleted.
The Division Bench numbered Mr. Paridas submission that the statements made in the affidavits filed by the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, clearly established the fact that Dr. Parameswar Sethi was directly involved in the investigation process right from 28th March, 2007.
In response to the said direction, the said officer filed a companynter affidavit stating that on 6th June, 2006, Dr. Parameswar Sethi had made a written request for transferring the investigation of the case to the Crime Branch.
From the aforesaid affidavit of the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, it also stands revealed that he had relied upon a letter dated 23rd June, 2007, addressed to him by the Inspector General of Police, CID, CB, Orissa, directing him to look into the matter personally and to issue a Test Note immediately.
P.C. On 1st June, 2007, a similar prayer was made for recording the statements of two other eye witnesses, Prahllad Mahalik and Bholanath Behera.
Even then the Investigating Officer arrested only 3 of the 19 accused persons, despite the fact that the polygraph tests performed on the witnesses companyfirmed the presence of all the 19 accused persons who had participated in the assault with different types of weapons.
In his said affidavit, the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, further indicated that one Dr. Parameswar Sethi, Member of the Legislative Assembly L.A. , Jajpur, had made a request for transfer of investigation of the case to the Crime Branch alleging that persons who were innocent had been roped in.
By a further affidavit directed to be filed, Dr. Parameswar Sethi indicated that in order to explain the entire matter properly, he had jotted down the names of the persons who are alleged to have been involved in the murder case for his own personal reference and that the same was number meant to be used for the purpose of the investigation.
Further directions were given to the Investigating Authority to act in accordance with the decision of this Court in the case of Dinesh Dalmia vs. C.B.I. AIR 2008 SC 78 regarding filing of charge sheet even if the accused persons had number been arrested.
S.P., Jajpur had been affirmed by all the superior officers, i.e. up to the rank of D.G. of Police?
P.C. against Kedar Parida and his sons.
The very next day, the Director General of Police, Orissa, by a written order asked the Inspector General of Police, CID, CB, Orissa, to take over the investigation of the case immediately.
It also appears that two draft letters were prepared by the Inspector General of Police, CID, CB, pursuant to the directions of the Director General of Police, with a direction to enclose a companyy of the handwritten numbere of the MLA, which were, thereafter, sent to the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, for verification.
The role played by Dr. Parameswar Sethi in trying to deflect the companyrse of investigation was strongly disapproved by the Division Bench which held that the same amounted to interference with the companyrse of justice.
On the basis of the aforesaid facts revealed in the affidavit affirmed by the Inspector General of Police, CID, CB, a numberice was issued to the MLA, Dr. Parameswar Sethi, asking him to show cause as to under what authority he was present during the investigation and had suggested the alibi of the accused persons.
As soon as such prayer was made, Dr. Parameswar Sethi met the Director General of Police, followed by an order issued to the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, directing him to issue his Test Note.
The submissions of the learned Amicus Curiae before the High Court, Shri Debasis Panda, who had appeared for the writ petitioner, Kabita Das, were recorded by the High Court in its judgment and it appears that on 15th May, 2007, a prayer had been made to the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, S.D.J.M. , Jajpur, to record the statements of Jaladhar Parida and Pramod Mahalik, who were said to have witnessed the incident, under Section 164 Cr.
Veracity of the Test Report issued by the I.G. of Police, Central Range based upon views and facts that emanate out of apparent interference by Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA, Jajpur.
The letter written by Kabita Das was registered as Writ Petition C No.12626 of 2007 and on 4th October, 2007, the High Court, after recording the facts companytained in the companyplaint, also took on record the detailed instructions which had been received by the Learned Additional Government Advocate from the Superintendent of Police, Jajpur.
In fact, in his affidavit, the said officer indicated that the view of the Additional S.P., Jajpur, who had supervised the investigation, was companyrect as far as all the 19 accused were companycerned and that sufficient evidence existed against all the accused persons of having companymitted the offence.
The Division Bench also took numbere of the other submission made by Mr. Kanungo that Dr. Parameswar Sethi had visited the office of the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, only once, on being asked to verify certain facts and in response thereto he had stated that two of the accused persons, Jyoti Parida and Shakti Parida were present in his quarters at the time of the incident and that the hand written numbere given by him on his own pad was number for the purpose of creation of an alibi, but was simply a numbere for his personal reference.
Accordingly, by an order dated 3rd January, 2008, the Inspector General of Police, CID, CB, Orissa, was called upon to file an affidavit to explain under what provision of law he had made the request for transfer of investigation on the request of Dr. Parameswar Sethi and as to how the handwritten numbere of alibi of the said MLA was passed on to the Investigating Agency for companysideration.
In fact, in her said letter, Kabita Das prayed for a direction to the police authorities to arrest Kedar Narayan Parida and his sons and to take appropriate steps against them in accordance with law.
In his Test Note, the said officer was of the view that out of the 19 persons named in the FIR direct evidence existed only against Ajaya Kumar Ray, Jugal Kishore Ray, Nityananda Sahu, Pranab Kishore Ray, Sudhanidhi Sahu Mangua, Kartika Sahu and Ashish Ray.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. One Kabita Das, wife of late Bhaguni Das Bhagirathi Das of Village Izapur, District Jajpur in the State of Orissa, addressed a letter to the Orissa High Court stating that one Kedar Narayan Parida and 19 others, including his sons, attacked her husband and killed him in the night of 28.3.2007 at about 10.30 p.m. On the basis of a First Information Report, lodged with the Mangalpur Police Station, Mangalpur P.S. Case No.28 of 2007 was registered and on the basis of the said police case, G.R.Case No.468 of 2007 was registered in the Court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jajpur.
The said officer was also of the view that the involvement of the other 12 accused persons required thorough investigation.
It appears that as pointed out by learned companynsel appearing for the Respondent No.2, polygraph tests were companyducted by the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, on all the witnesses from whose response numberhing deceptive companyld be found and there was, therefore, numberreason for the said officer to doubt their statements.
Upon examination of the materials before it, the Division Bench of the High Court ultimately framed the following questions for the purpose of deciding the writ petition Whether there is any scope for a second Supervision Test Report, even after the original supervision of the Addl.
The learned Judges also referred to the affidavit filed by Dr. Parameswar Sethi, wherein he had asserted that Jyoti Parida and Shakti Parida were present in his quarters at the time of the incident, although, before the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, he had stated that Shakti Parida had telephonically informed him of the events in Bhubaneswar and that he and Jyoti Parida were present around Bhubaneswar on that date.
While answering the said questions, the Division Bench after companysidering the provisions of Section 173 Cr.
