JUDGMENT B. P. DAS, J. — The petitioner, who is a helpless lady and whose husband-Kisan Kedia died in a mysterious circumstances, has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. in short) praying for re-investigation of Sambalpur Town P.S. Case No. 260 dated 26.7.2000 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I. in short) on the allegation that a clear case of murder is being tried to be hushed off by the investi¬gation agency of the State at the behest of the masters/employers of the deceased, who are moneyed and influential businessmen of Sambalpur town. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present application, as transpire from the record, may be stated thus : On 26.7.2000 at about 6.30 a.m. on Dilip Kumar Vegad, son of Mohanlal Udhaj Vegad of Jhaduapada, Sambalpur town, made an oral information before the Inspector-in-charge of Sambalpur Town Police Station disclosing the death of his co-employee, Kisan Kedia, and the same was reduced to writing and was treated as an F.I.R. (Annexure-2). The informant in the aforesaid F.I.R. dis¬closed that he had been working as a salesman for the last two years in “Jay Ambey General Stores” at Gaiety Road, Sambalpur, belonging to Hemant Kumar Patel and Gobardhan Bhai Patel, where the deceased Kisan Kedia was working as salesman along with two others. On 25/26.7.2000 at about 1.30 a.m. Hemant Kumar Patel came to his residence along with the deceased and asked him to come immediately to his shop. The informant and the deceased came with Hemant in is scooter to his shop and on their arrival at the hotel of Magan Bhai Patel, which is adjacent to the shop of Hemant, they found the hotel boy-Ainthu Sahu and two new hotel boys were sitting. Then Hemant went and called his elder brother Gobardhan Bhai Patel and after Hemant and Gobardhan arrived, Gobardhan asked about theft from the shop to which the informant and the deceased expressed their ignorance. Then both Hemant and Gobardhan assaulted them and took them along with Ainthu to their adjacent cloth godown and confined the deceased as well as the informant in one room and the hotel boy in another room. Then both Hemant and Gobardhan assaulted them and took them along with Ainthu to their adjacent cloth godown and confined the deceased as well as the informant in one room and the hotel boy in another room. Both the brothers left the place to call the other two employees, namely, Khan and Sapan @ Bapi, for confrontation regarding the theft from the shop, after locking the room from outside. Thereafter the informant advised the deceased to go to sleep and he slept in the said room. At about 3.30 a.m., when Hemant unlocked the room, the informant woke up and on enquiry about the deceased, the inform¬ant told Hemant that the deceased was retiring in the upstair room Hemant then along with the informant went to the upstair and found the deceased-Kisan Kedia hanging by his neck from the ceiling fan of the room by means of a ‘Dupatta’ (a long cotton cloth used as wearing apparel). Immediately thereafter Gobardhan came and all of them brought down the deceased unto the floor, removed the ‘Dupatta’ and gave some first-aid to the deceased. Hemant called Dr. Anil Desai, who came and after examining the deceased declared him dead. The aforesaid F.I.R. of Dilip Kumar Vegad was registered as Sambalpur Town P. S. Case No. 260 of 2000 under Sections 342/306/34, I.P.C. against Hemant Kumar Patel and Gobardhan Bhai Patel, whereafter investigation followed. During the course of investigation, on the same day, i.e., 26.7.2000, at about 9.15 a.m. the present petitioner, wife of the deceased, submitted a report to the Inspector-in-charge of the P.S. at the spot, vide Annexure-1, stating therein - “1. That Kisan Kedia my husband was working as a salesman in “JAY AMBE GENERAL STORE', Gaiety Road, Sambalpur, since last three years. 2. That I am residing at Nandapada, Sambalpur in a rented house. Yesterday, i.e., 26.7.2000 night at about 12.30 a.m., I along with my husband Kisan Kedia and minor son were sleeping in our house. At that time I heard somebody was calling my husband shouting his name. We woke up. My husband told that Hemant Patel, owner of the shop, was calling. He was not willing to go with him but he forced him to go with him. Finding no other alterna¬tive he agreed to go with him. At that time I heard somebody was calling my husband shouting his name. We woke up. My husband told that Hemant Patel, owner of the shop, was calling. He was not willing to go with him but he forced him to go with him. Finding no other alterna¬tive he agreed to go with him. Then he was calling another staff Dilip Vegad and then both went with Hemant Patel towards his shop and Hemant told me that ‘Bhabi Kisan jara late se ayega app so jaiye’, then I closed the door of the house and slept and till morn¬ing my husband did not return my house. 3. Today i.e. 26.7.2000 in the morning at about 9 a.m. on getting information that my husband was lying dead in the shop room of Hemanta Patel at Gaiety Talkies Road, I rushed to the spot. On reaching the spot, I found bleeding injuries on the face of my husband and could know that he was murdered in the last night. On seeing the dead body, I became nervous and dumbfounded. I strongly believe that Hemanta Patel and his brother Gobardhan Patel have committed the murder of my husband as Hemanta Patel forcibly took my husband with him even though he was not willing to go with him in the last night. 4. I, therefore, request you to kindly register and inves¬tigate into the matter and take necessary action against the said accused persons as per law.” On the aforesaid report of the petitioner, the case was turned to be one under Sections 342/302/34, I.P.C. Later on the Crime Branch took over the investigation of the aforesaid case and during the pendency of this application, submitted the charge sheet on 9.3.2001 against accused Hemant Kumar Patel, and Gobard¬han Bhai Patel under Sections 323/330/342/306/34, I.P.C. 3. It is pertinent to mention here that this criminal misc. case was filed making allegations against the local police. An affidavit was filed by the Superintendent of Police, Sambal¬pur, refuting such allegations and stating that later on the investigation was transferred and handed over to the Crime Branch. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife of the deceased is also not satisfied as to the manner in which the investigation was done and charge-sheet was filed as there were many a missing links and unanswered questions giving rise to suspicion over the result of the investigation. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife of the deceased is also not satisfied as to the manner in which the investigation was done and charge-sheet was filed as there were many a missing links and unanswered questions giving rise to suspicion over the result of the investigation. On the aforesaid premises, the petitioner has prayed before this Court for a direction for re-investigation of the case by an independent agency like the C.B.I. 4. In order to fortify the stand, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this case being a sensational case created much hue and cry amongst the general public not only in Sambalpur town but also in the neighbouring Raipur district of Madhya Pradesh, now Chhatisgarh State, which is apparent from the news items published in different newspapers of Sambalpur and Raipur, which are annexed as Annexure 3 series. In this connec¬tion some citizens of Sambalpur also made a representation to the Chief Minister of Orissa as per Annexure-4 requesting him to entrust the investigation of the case to the C.B.I. in the larger interest of the general public and to instill confidence in the mind of the general public. 5. In the above premises, the first and foremost question that falls for determination is whether this Court can re-open the investigation by entrusting the same to a special agency like C.B.I. and, if so, whether the facts and circumstances of the case justify issuance of such a direction. 6. The fact remains, the Crime Branch took over the inves¬tigation of the case from the local police and has already sub¬mitted the charge-sheet in the case. During the hearing of this case, my attention was drawn to the F.I.R. lodged by Dilip Kumar Vegad as well as the report subsequently made by Seema Kedia, the wife of the deceased. Fact also remains that the informant-Dilip and the deceased-Kisan were taken from their residence by their employer-Hemant in his scooter to his shop at the dead of the night of occurrence on the allegation of the theft from his shop. As per the F.I.R., Gobardhan came to the spot on being called by his brother Hemant whereafter both of them assaulted the deceased and the informant mercilessly and kept them in a room in their godown and after locking the room, they went to call other two salesmen for confrontation about theft. As per the F.I.R., Gobardhan came to the spot on being called by his brother Hemant whereafter both of them assaulted the deceased and the informant mercilessly and kept them in a room in their godown and after locking the room, they went to call other two salesmen for confrontation about theft. When they returned at about 3.30 a.m., Hemant unlocked the room and to his query, the informant told that the deceased was on the first floor room. Then both of them went to the upstair and found the deceased hanging from the ceiling fan of the room. Gobardhan also reached the spot and all of them brought down the body of the deceased and gave first-aid. Hemant then called one doctor, namely, Anil Desai, who on examining declared the deceased dead. The informant in the F.I.R. has stated that he suspected that because of the assault by the accused persons suspecting him to have committed theft from the shop of the accused and apprehending arrest by the police, the deceased might have committed suicide. 7. From the facts and narrated above, it appears that though the deceased was taken from his house at the dead of the night by Hemant and the death of the deceased took place in the godown of Hemant and Gobardhan, F.I.R. was not lodged by any one of them but by one of their employees, who was also taken along with the deceased from his house and both the deceased and the informant were kept in captive in one of the rooms of the godown under lock. That apart, the Investigating Officer sent the dead body of the deceased by the challan dated 26.7.2000 to the Pro¬fessor and Head of Department of F.M.T., V.S.S. Medical College Hospital, Burla, stating therein that when the deceased was found hanging on the upstair of the shop from a fan, the accused and the informant immediately brought down the deceased from the hanging position and removed the cloth and called one Dr. Desai, who on arrival at the spot, confirmed the death of the deceased. From the case diary produced before me, I, however, find that Dr. Desai, who on arrival at the spot, confirmed the death of the deceased. From the case diary produced before me, I, however, find that Dr. Desai, who was examined by the police, stated in his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. that he was a private practitioner and at about 4.45 a.m. on the date of occurrence, Hemant Patel along with one Sardar, came to his residence and requested him to accompany him for treatment of one of his friends, who had become unconscious after a fall. On the spot, he found that on the first floor of the godown of 'Jay Ambey General Store’, a man was lying on the floor and on examining him, he found that his pulse and heart-beats had already been stopped. He declared the said person dead. On his enquiry, according to the doctor, the person present there told him that the patient (Kisan Kedia) vomited due to head reeling for which the doctor thought that the patient might have died due to heart-attack and, therefore, he did not inform the incident to police. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused persons in order to save them from the charge of murder of the deceased coloured it as a suicide. According to him, peti¬tioner’s husband was killed by the accused persons in course of assault on him because there was no reason as to why her husband would commit suicide after being roughed of by the accused per¬sons. It is further argued that though the informant was one of the persons alleged to have been beaten up by the accused persons on the allegation of theft from the godown, he joined hands with his employers, i.e., the accused persons, who, in a conspiracy to wipe out the evidence of murder, managed to lodge the F.I.R. by the informant, which appears to be false. As it appears, although the deceased was taken by one of the accused persons in his scooter at the dead of the night and the death took place in the business premises of the accused persons, who were very much present at the spot, none of them came forward to lodge the F.I.R. whereas the informant, who was an employee, was chosen by the accused persons to lodge the F.I.R. The conduct of the ac¬cused in not giving information to the family members of the deceased regarding his death is totally suspicious and more so it becomes mysterious. When this Court went through the statement of Dr. Anil Desai recorded by the police during the investigation it transpires that Dr. Desai runs a private clinic and on the date of occurrence at about 4.45 a.m., Hemant Patel accompanied by one Sardar came to his residence and requested him to go along with them for the treatment of one of the persons who was in an uncon¬scious state. The doctor accompanied them to the spot and found that on the first floor of the godown of ‘Jay Ambey General Store’, a man was lying straight. On examination, he declared him dead. On being questioned as to the death of the said person, the persons present there told him that the same was due to head-reeling and vomiting for which the doctor thought that the de¬ceased might have died due to heart-attack and, therefore, the doctor did not think it necessary to inform the police. The police authority as well as the Crime Branch have not at all investigated into that aspect, thereby missing the link and creating a doubt in the mind of this Court as to why the accused disclosed before the doctor that the deceased died due to head-reeling and vomiting instead of disclosing the fact of suicide to the doctor who as the first person to reach the spot and had the occasion to examine the deceased. From this, it is crystal clear that the accused persons right from the beginning were trying to keep the actual reason of the death of the deceased a closely guarded secret. 9. From this, it is crystal clear that the accused persons right from the beginning were trying to keep the actual reason of the death of the deceased a closely guarded secret. 9. Though the post-mortem report discloses that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia, the fact remains that the following injuries were found on the body of the deceased, which were ante mortem as per the post mortem report : “(1) 8 nos. of abrasions on Rt. cheek each 0.5 cm. x 0.25 cm. diameter in a cresenti area from angle of Rt. eye to angle mouth, viz.....red in colour with inflammatory reaction. (2) Cresenti abrasions 0.25 cm. x 0.25 cm, 1 cm below margin of lower lip on Rt. side. (3) Cresenti abrasions 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm, 4 cm below Rt. angle of jaw. (4) Rt upper eye lid shows haematoma 2.5 cm. x 0.75 cm. (5) Contusion lower lip......surface on Rt. side on.......corresponding to injury No. 2 above. xx xx xx.' The inquest report reveals that the deceased was lying straight and defecated. The seizure list included one ‘Chunri’ which was allegedly used by the deceased for committing suicide by hanging. Most surprisingly the doctor, who examined the de¬ceased first, had not noticed the ‘Chunri’ nor the faeces. 10. The entire occurrence, as it appears from the case record, clearly indicates that from the beginning the accused persons had tried to hide the truth. They have disclosed the cause of death to Dr. Desai to be head-reeling and later on the story of suicide was advanced. No probe has been made either by the general police or by the Crime Branch regarding the statement of Dr. Desai as well as the circumstances under which the de¬ceased was taken from his house and later on found dead. That apart, there is no answer as to why F.I.R. was lodged by one of the employees who along with the deceased was also a victim of assault by the accused persons. All these circumstances have rightly given rise to a suspicion in the mind of the wife of the deceased about the impartialy of the investigation. Therefore, I am of the view that this is a fit case where the C.B.I. should be directed to investigate into the case. 11. All these circumstances have rightly given rise to a suspicion in the mind of the wife of the deceased about the impartialy of the investigation. Therefore, I am of the view that this is a fit case where the C.B.I. should be directed to investigate into the case. 11. In this connection, it would be worthwhile to notice the observations made by the Apex Court in Gudalure M.J. Cherian v. Union of India, 1992 (I) CRIMES 2, which are quoted below: “.......The investigation having been completed by the police and charge-sheet submitted to the Court, it is not for this Court, ordinarily, to re-open the investigation specially by entrusting the same to a specialised agency like C.B.I. We are also conscious that of late the demand for CBI investigation even in police-cases is on the increase. Nevertheless in a given situation, to do justice between the parties and to instill confidence in the public mind it may become necessary to ask the CBI to investigate a crime. It only shows the efficiency and the independence of the agency”. Reference is made to a decision of this Court in Himansu Mohan Patnaik v. State of Orissa, (1997) 13 O.C.R. 459, in which the order passed by the S.D.J.M. directing the C.B.I. to take up further and thorough investigation of a U.D. case challenged in revision and this Court held that the order of the S.D.J.M. cannot be regarded as legal; but looking into the case this Court thought it proper to direct for investigation by the C.B.I. with the following observations : “.......However, faithfully the local policy may carry out the investigation, the same will lack credibility since the alle¬gations are made against them. It is only with that in mind that I have thought it both advisable and desirable as well as in the interest of justice to entrust the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation......” 12. In my considered opinion, on each and every allega¬tion regarding improper conduct of investigation by the police, there cannot be direction for entrusting the investigation to the C.B.I. because it may open a flood-gate and overburden the C.B.I. But each case has to be considered on its own facts and circum¬stances and has to be decided in an independent and objective manner. As indicated earlier, this is a case where the investi¬gating agencies left many aspects unearthed which have rightly given rise to a suspicion in the mind of the petitioner about the impartiality of their investigation. 13. In the present case, as indicated above, I have seen that the F.I.R. was lodged by Dilip disclosing commission of suicide by the deceased but the report lodged by Seema Kedia, the wife of the deceased, alleges murder of her husband. I find the investigating agencies have not investigated the case on the angle of murder as alleged by the petitioner in the report sub¬mitted to the police. I am satisfied that in order to unearth the truth behind the death of the deceased and in the interest of justice, it is necessary to entrust the investigation of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation for a proper and thorough probe. I, therefore, direct the C.B.I. to make investigation of the case and submit final form, if any, in accordance with law. Till then, the trial of the present case, i.e., Sambalpur Town P.S. Case No. 260 of 2000, shall remain stayed. The Crime Branch is directed to hand over the required papers to the C.B.I. and the C.B.I. authorities will be free to take necessary papers from the Court of the S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, where the charge-sheet has been filed. All logistic support shall be rendered to the C.B.I. authorities by the Crime Branch as well as the local police authorities, if so required, in the matter of investigation of the aforesaid case. The Director of C.B.I., New Delhi, is directed to constitute a team of officers to investigate into the case. 14. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed. Let a copy of this judgment be furnished to Shri S. K. Das, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, for the State, Shri S. Pujhari for the petitioner, and Shri S. P. Panda for the C.B.I. Crl. Misc. Case allowed.