Order Heard the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for direction to the police to reinvestigate the case, which was registered as Mahagama P.S. Case No. 26/2004 on 8.3.2004 under Sections 147,148,149, 120B, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, on the ground that the widow mother of the petitioner was killed by his own cousin Sanjay Prasad Verma but the fardbeyan was recorded by Ashok Kumar Verma in which he made allegations against different persons and he suppressed the real fact to help the main culprits. Though the petitioner and his younger sister Urmila Devi were also present at the time of occurrence but they were deliberately not allowed to become informant of the case. 3. It is stated that the police in connivance with the main culprit, completed the investigation in haste and submitted charge-sheet against the FIR named accused persons and cited the petitioner and his sister as eye-witnesses. The petitioner was examined during the trial as a witness. It is stated that the petitioner was forced and compelled to make statement in court in favour of the accused persons since his sister was kept confined till that time by the accused Sanjay Prasad Verma, who asked the petitioner to depose in Court as per his dictate otherwise he was told that his sister would be killed. It is stated by the petitioner that having found no other way, he had to obey the dictate of Sanjay Prasad Verma the main accused of the said case. It is further stated that after the release of his sister from the clutches of the accused Sanjay Prasad Verma, he sent his sister to the house of his maternal uncle and then he has filed this application for direction for fresh investigation by any agency. The petitioner has made allegation against the investigating agency by stating that it did not investigate the case properly nor did it record the statement of any independent villagers and this has been done only in connivance with the main accused persons. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Godda. The petitioner has made allegation against the investigating agency by stating that it did not investigate the case properly nor did it record the statement of any independent villagers and this has been done only in connivance with the main accused persons. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Godda. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that four eye-witnesses were examined including the son of the deceased, who is the present petitioner but no one including the petitioner uttered a word about Sanjay Prasad Verma being the real assailant in their statement before the Investigating Officer, the Supervising Officer or before the trial court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in (2004)5 SCC 347 " has submitted that even if the court has taken cognizance further investigation can be ordered under Section 173(8) Cr. PC. if defective investigation come to the light during the course of trial, it may be cured by further investigation, if circumstances so permit. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and also considering the decision of the Supreme Court, cited above, in my view, the petitioner has been able to make out a case for further investigation of the case and I feel that for the ends of justice there should be further investigation so that the real truth may come out. 7. In this view of the matter, this application is allowed and disposed of by directing the Superintendent of Police, Godda to get the case, i.e. Mahagama RS. Case No. 26 of 2004 further investigated by a competent Officer and to submit report to the trial court on or before 18th August, 2006. Till that date the further proceedings of the Sessions Trial No. 182 of 2004/112 of 2005 shall remain stayed.