JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. On the basis of news reports published in the daily news paper “Amar Ujala” dated 13.6.2017, this Court taking suo motu cognizance issued notice to the State. As per news reports, forest mafia had felled trees valuing several crores of rupees and dead body of a Forest Guard, who was missing for two days was found in a jungle. 2. Since 20.6.2017, this Court has been directing the authorities to file affidavits/status reports. Pursuant thereto, Superintendent of Police, Mandi, has filed two affidavits dated 23.6.2017 (page -5) and 17.7.2017 (page- 133), Deputy Commissioner Mandi, has filed his affidavit dated 24.6.2017 (page – 60) and Conservator of Forest, Mandi Forest Circle Mandi (respondent No. 6) has filed two composite affidavits dated 24.6.2017 (page – 31) and 17.7.2017 (page – 74) on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, 6 & 7. 3. It is a matter of record that on 15.6.2017/17.6.2017, investigation of the case was transferred to the State CID, whereafter two status reports dated 19.7.2017 (page – 120) and 31.7.2017 (page – 164) stand filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Shimla. 4. Considering the sensitivity of the matter as also its importance, the issues involved as also huge public outrage expressing concern about the manner in which investigation was being conducted, this Court requested Sh. Satyen Vaidya, learned Senior Counsel, to assist the Court as an Amicus Curiae. We also requested Mr. L. S. Mehta, Advocate, conversant with the area of crime, to assist as an Amicus. 5. Considering the submissions made by the learned Amicus and the material placed on record by the respondents, this Court directed the State to consider referring the matter for investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short CBI). On 9.8.2017, the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh filed an affidavit (page–168) stating that “investigation of the case is almost at the stage of completion” and that “shortly, we would be able to file a final report in the case under section 173 Cr.P.C. at the trial court”, hence, matter be not transferred to CBI. 6. Since decision was not that of the competent authority, on 9.8.2017, this Court directed the State to take a categorical stand, which now stands conveyed in terms of affidavit dated 23.8.2017 (page-170) wherein Joint Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh has averred as under: “3. 6. Since decision was not that of the competent authority, on 9.8.2017, this Court directed the State to take a categorical stand, which now stands conveyed in terms of affidavit dated 23.8.2017 (page-170) wherein Joint Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh has averred as under: “3. That the matter was discussed in Cabinet and after due deliberations, it has been decided that the investigations may not be handed over to CBI at this stage particularly when the same is at its advanced stage and the State machinery is competent to handle such issues effectively. 4. That in view of the above submissions, it is humbly prayed that the investigation of this case may not be handed over to the CBI and the State Police (CID) should be allowed to continue with the same. 5. That leave of this Hon’ble Court may also kindly be allowed for filing charge sheet by State Police (CID) on conclusion of the investigation before the competent Court of Law.” 7. Learned Amicus has filed his brief note, pointing out reasons as to why matter be referred for investigation to the CBI. In fact, both of them are insistent that keeping in view the manner in which investigation stands conducted, both by the police as also the CID, matter requires to be investigated by an independent agency. 8. It is in this background we proceed to consider the matter. 9. From the affidavits filed by different officers of the State, two issues arise for consideration: (i) Investigation of the crime in question (ii) lack of adequate infrastructure and mechanism in place required for checking illicit trade of timber resulting into illegal felling of trees in the area. 10. We may point out that insofar as the second issue is concerned, in the instant petition, we are not dealing with the same, which the learned Amicus desires, to be taken up independently in an appropriate petition. We are in agreement and as such leave the question open. 11. However, from the affidavits filed by the Conservator of Forest, certain undisputed facts emerge. Sh. Hoshiar Singh, a newly recruited Forest Guard was posted on contract basis in Katanda Beat, Mahog Block, Magroo Range under Karsog Forest Division (District Mandi, H.P.). Since 16.3.2017, he had been diligently, rather pro-actively discharging his duties. 11. However, from the affidavits filed by the Conservator of Forest, certain undisputed facts emerge. Sh. Hoshiar Singh, a newly recruited Forest Guard was posted on contract basis in Katanda Beat, Mahog Block, Magroo Range under Karsog Forest Division (District Mandi, H.P.). Since 16.3.2017, he had been diligently, rather pro-actively discharging his duties. Noticing rampant illicit felling of Deodar trees in Garjub forest area, he reported the matter to the appropriate authorities. Factum of illicit felling of trees, in and around the area of crime, is admitted by the forest officials as is evident from their affidavits dated 24.6.2017 (page-31) and 17.7.2017 (page-74). During the course of investigation of the crime in question, forest officials found more than 395 stumps of various species of trees felled in the jungle. An endeavour is made to explain that most of the stumps pertain to felling, which took place in accordance with law, but the fact of the matter, as is so admitted by the forest officials, is that illicit timber was also recovered from the forest. It is also a matter of record that the area in question where Hoshiar Singh was posted is thick dense forest. Thus, prima facie the news report was correct. 12. From the affidavit dated 23.6.2017 (page-5), so filed by the Superintendent of Police, Mandi it is apparent that dead body of the deceased was found hanging on a tree of deodar species. This was in the thick of the jungle. From the noon of 5.6.2017, deceased was found missing and a search party comprising of Up-Pradhan Jeet Ram and Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Kuthed was formed to trace him. An attempt was also made to contact him on his mobile. However, all this did not yield any result and consequently on 7.6.2017 at about 10.36 a.m., Sh. Tej Ram Verma, Forest Range Officer, Magroo and Ankit Kumar, Forest Guard, reported the matter at police station, Karsog where DD Entry No. 022, dated 7.6.2017 was recorded. It appears that police did take some action and “hue and cry information/notice” was issued. Only on 9.6.2017, a shepherd noticed the dead body of the deceased hanging from a tree, information whereof was passed on to the forest officials, who, after informing the family members of the deceased, visited the spot. It appears that police did take some action and “hue and cry information/notice” was issued. Only on 9.6.2017, a shepherd noticed the dead body of the deceased hanging from a tree, information whereof was passed on to the forest officials, who, after informing the family members of the deceased, visited the spot. Thus on the basis of complaint lodged by Paras Ram, uncle of the deceased, F.I.R. No. 69 of 2017, dated 9.6.2017 was registered at police station Karsog under the provisions of Section 302 IPC. Same day, police party headed by SHO Ashwani Kumar visited the spot for conducting the investigation. The dead body hanging from a tree at Garjub jungle near Seri Katanda (Karsog) and clothes and a bag found close by were taken into possession. Same day a team of officers from the Office of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Mandi (in short RFSL, Mandi) visited the spot and on examination of the area noticed vomit at a distance of 60 meters from the place where dead body was recovered, sample whereof was also taken. The bag recovered from the spot was opened on 10.6.2017 from which one vial marked “HAMER INSECTICIDE POISION” and a diary containing suicide note mentioning names of certain persons, including officials of the Forest Department were recovered. Resultantly, police decided to investigate the crime not from the point of homicide but as a case of suicide. Consequently, offence in the F.I.R. was converted from Section 302 IPC to 306 IPC on 10.6.2017 itself and the persons named in the suicide note i.e. Ghanshyam Dass, Het Ram, Anil Kumar, Lobh Singh and Tej Singh (a forest official), all residents of the same area (tehsil) were arrested. The sixth accused Sh. Girdhari Lal (a forest official) was arrested on 13.6.2017. 13. The dead body was sent for post mortem, which was conducted at the Zonal Hospital, Mandi, whereafter relatives performed last rites. Various samples collected during the course of investigation were sent for analysis to RFSL Mandi. Also two additional FIRs, being FIR No. 70 of 2017 dated 12.6.2017 and FIR No.73 of 2017 dated 21.6.2017, both under the provisions of Section 379 IPC read with Sections 32 & 33 of Indian Forest Act, were registered against an unknown person at Police Station Karsog, Distt. Mandi. 14. Also two additional FIRs, being FIR No. 70 of 2017 dated 12.6.2017 and FIR No.73 of 2017 dated 21.6.2017, both under the provisions of Section 379 IPC read with Sections 32 & 33 of Indian Forest Act, were registered against an unknown person at Police Station Karsog, Distt. Mandi. 14. Postmortem report revealed the deceased to have died as a result of “asphyxia semdans to gross pulmonary indema and corrival academe congestion”. This is what, Superintendent of Police, Mandi, states in his affidavit dated 23.06.2017 (page-5). All report from RFSL, Mandi reveals that “The combination of insecticide contains chlorphrifos (organophosphorus compound) and cypermethrin (pyrethroid compound) is commonly used in agriculture, especially in production fruits and vegetables. It is easily available in the local market. The combination of chlorpyrifous and cytpermenthrin is highly toxic for human being”. 15. Though he does not disclose the reason for doing so, but it is quite apparent, as is pointed out by the learned Amicus, since there was huge public outcry, about the manner in which the police had conducted the investigation, State decided to constitute an SIT, which was so done on 13.06.2017. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Additional Advocate General, clarifies that the said SIT was headed by Additional Superintendent of Police, Mandi. 16. Immediately thereafter, Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, directed the matter to be investigated by the State CID, which was so done vide communication dated 15.06.2017 and investigation by the said Agency commenced on 17.06.2017. 17. What is important is that only investigation of FIR No. 69 of 2017 was entrusted to the CID and investigation of FIR Nos.70 of 2017, dated 12.06.2017 and 73 of 2017, dated 21.06.2017 were kept with the local Police Station. 18. In his subsequent affidavit dated 17.07.2017 (page-133), Superintendent of Police, Mandi, does not state anything new. 19. From the status report, dated 19.07.2017 (Page-120) and dated 31.07.2017 (Page-164), so filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Shimla, police wants the Court to believe that everything is in order and that investigation was conducted in a fair and proper manner. During the course of investigation, another suicide note and diary was recovered, in which, deceased expressed his pain, anguish and shock, the manner in which affairs of the Department were being conducted. He expressed complicity of various persons, including officials of the Forest Department in illicit trade and felling of timber. During the course of investigation, another suicide note and diary was recovered, in which, deceased expressed his pain, anguish and shock, the manner in which affairs of the Department were being conducted. He expressed complicity of various persons, including officials of the Forest Department in illicit trade and felling of timber. Allegedly, he had also written that it is difficult for an honest person to live in this world (Chhod kar jana to nahin chahta tha par kya karun sansar sachche aadmi ko jeene nahin deta hai. Is duniya mein imandaar hona sabse bada gunha hai). 20. From the status report, it is a specific case of the investigating agency that deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. 21. Finding the hypothesis to be not correct, if not true, learned Amicus, points out that the investigating agency did not investigate the matter, in terms of suggestions placed on record vide note dated 20.07.2017 (page-145), also his subsequent note dated 11.09.2017 points yawning gaps and defects in the investigation conducted thus far. 22. What we find intriguing is as to why possibility of murder was not considered and ruled out. It appears that with blinkers investigation was carried out only from the point of suicide. Hand written note of the deceased may be a pointer in that direction but the other possibility is not ruled out. 23. Further, police wants the Court to believe that in the early hours of 05.06.2017, deceased had consumed rice, daal, salad, potato mixed with peas in the house of Pawan Kumar, who was posted as a Trained Graduate Teacher in the area. This was before 8.45 a.m. Significantly from the postmortem report, it is apparent that such undigested food was found in the stomach of the deceased. It has come in the investigation that whereabouts of the deceased could be traced lastly at about 1.17 p.m. as he had called his grandmother from the mobile phone. At that time, deceased was somewhere near the spot where his dead body was recovered. No signs of anxiety were exhibited. Now significantly postmortem was conducted on 10.06.2017, which was five days after the food was consumed. Status report reveals that normally it would take 2-3 hours for the food to be digested and the stomach to be emptied. At that time, deceased was somewhere near the spot where his dead body was recovered. No signs of anxiety were exhibited. Now significantly postmortem was conducted on 10.06.2017, which was five days after the food was consumed. Status report reveals that normally it would take 2-3 hours for the food to be digested and the stomach to be emptied. Relevant portion of the opinion of the experts reads to the effect that “The said team on a pertinent question mentioned at “para-g” of the status report responded as under:- “Rice and dal particles retain their form up to 3 hours and 2 hours under ideal conditions usually the bulk of meals leaves the stomach within 2 hours and stomach gets emptied in 4-6 hours. The gastric emptying time may further be delayed in the presence of irritant foreign substance like poison and also dependent upon emotional stroke psychological factor and is delayed in a state of emotional stroke physical shock. All digestive process in the body are to function when the person is dead and the contents will remain same after 100 hours of death.” 24. Hence, in view of the murky picture which the learned Amicus points, need emerges for obtaining further opinion of an Expert, with regard to digestion of food consumed by the deceased, five days prior to the conduct of postmortem. 25. The status report reveals that deceased died as a result of consumption of poison. But then from where such poison was obtained is a mystery. There is a missing link. For it is not the case of the Investigating Officer that poison was taken by the deceased from the plant nursery, maintained by the Department of Forest. Crucially did the deceased himself consumed the poison or was it a mischief remains uninvestigated. 26. Another question which remains unanswered is as to how the dead body of the deceased was found hanging upside down from a tree, almost 15 feet, from the ground level. If hypothesis of the Investigating Officer is to be believed, then why would a person intending to commit suicide, climb a tree that too after consuming poison. For it has not come in the investigation that deceased consumed the poison after climbing the tree. Also there is nothing on record to link the deceased with the bottle of poison recovered from the bag allegedly belonging to him. 27. For it has not come in the investigation that deceased consumed the poison after climbing the tree. Also there is nothing on record to link the deceased with the bottle of poison recovered from the bag allegedly belonging to him. 27. Learned Amicus, invites our attention to the fact that though bag was recovered from the spot on 09.06.2017 but opened only on 10.06.2017. Crucially on 10.06.2017, there was no opinion of any Expert indicating the suicide note or the diary to be that of the deceased or the notings therein to be in his hand writing. Then on what basis FIR was converted from 302 IPC to 306 IPC remains unexplained. This aspect remains to be investigated. Absence thereof acquires significance as opinion of the Expert, that deceased died as a result of consuming poison was incidently given only on 20.06.2017. 28. As per medical evidence, deceased had suffered several ante mortem injuries. We are in agreement with the learned Amicus that opinion of the doctors at Zonal Hospital, Mandi, that “possibility of such injuries being sustained as a result of fall”, could have been reviewed by a team of Experts at the State level Hospital, which for some reason, despite suggestion made during the course of hearing was not considered. Necessity to do so, was all the more in view of opinion of the doctors themselves, who inter alia had opined that “the distribution of injury seems to imply more than one contact with the blunt surface”. 29. To corroborate their hypothesis of suicide, Investigating Officer seeks reliance upon the opinion of the Expert, suggesting that particles of poison were found in the sample of the vomit taken by the police. 30. Learned Amicus points out that it has come in investigation that from 5th to 9th June, 2017, as per report of Patwari, there was intermittent rain in the area. What was the extent of rain and as to whether particles of vomit could be recovered from the spot on 10.06.2017, after a gap of four days, itself requires to be investigated and examined, rather deeply by the Experts. 31. Also there is variation and improbability in the opinion of the doctor with regard to the tentative date and time of death of the deceased. It varies from 36 to beyond 90 hours. 32. 31. Also there is variation and improbability in the opinion of the doctor with regard to the tentative date and time of death of the deceased. It varies from 36 to beyond 90 hours. 32. Also to reach out to the genesis of the crime, investigation in all the FIRs ought to have been carried out by the very same agency, which was not so done. It was all the more necessary, for rampant illicit felling allegedly was the cause for the deceased to have committed suicide. 33. It is not disputed before us that deceased was a young and upright officer. He endeavoured in checking illicit felling of trees in the area as also highlighted the issue on several occasions with the authorities (forest mafia was all prevalent). 34. Also whether he was suffering from any ailment or had any domestic issue compelling him to commit suicide, remains unexplained/uninvestigated. Possibility of murder has not been ruled out. 35. It is in this backdrop, we are in agreement with the submission of the learned Amicus that investigation needs to be conducted by an independent agency and more specifically CBI. 36. Learned Amicus, further points out that in relation to another unfortunate incident, keeping in view public sentiments and huge public outcry, State itself had requested this Court to refer the matter for investigation to CBI (CWPIL No.88 of 2017, titled as Court on its own motion vs. State of H.P. & others). 37. In the said decision, we have already, in extentio discussed the extent of power of this Court in referring the matter to the CBI, in the following terms:- “19. This Court in CWP No.169 of 2017, titled as M/s Paonta HP Centre v. Union of India (order dated 16.5.2017), had an occasion to deal with a case, where even though no consent was accorded by the State, under Section 6 of the Act, yet issued directions, asking the CBI to investigate the matter and all this, keeping in view – (a) seriousness of the allegations, (b) the enormity and the extent of the crime, and (c) prima facie coming to the conclusion that there is some truth in the allegations, based on cogent material. This Court observed as under: “16. When larger public interest is involved, it is the responsibility of the Constitutional Court, to assure judicial legitimacy and accountability. This Court observed as under: “16. When larger public interest is involved, it is the responsibility of the Constitutional Court, to assure judicial legitimacy and accountability. (See: Sahid Balwa vs. Union of India and others, (2014) 2 SCC 687 . 17. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation through S.P. Jaipur vs. State of Rajasthan and another, (2001) 3 SCC 333 have held that the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the Supreme Court under Article 32 or Article 142 (1) of the Constitution can be invoked, though sparingly, for giving such direction to Central Bureau of Investigation in certain cases. Their Lordships have held as under: “14. True, powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and of the Supreme Court under Article 32 or Article 142(1) of the Constitution can be invoked, though sparingly, for giving such direction to the CBI to investigate in certain cases, [vide Kashmeri Devi vs. Delhi Administration and anr., 1988 (Supp.) SCC 482 and Maniyeri Madhavan vs. Sub-Inspector of Police and ors., 1994 (1) SCC 536 ]. A two Judge Bench of this Court has by an order dated 10.3.1989, referred the question whether the High Court can order the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence committed within a State without the consent of that State Government or without any notification or order having been issued in that behalf under Section 6 of the Delhi Act. 15. In Mohammed Anis vs. Union of India and ors., 1994 Supple (1) SCC 145 Ahmadi, J. (as his Lordship then was) has observed thus (SCC pp. 148-49, para 6): “6. True it is, that a Division Bench of this Court made an order on March 10, 1989 referring the question whether a court can order the CBI, an establishment under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, to investigate a cognizable offence committed within a State without the consent of that State Government or without any notification or order having been issued in that behalf. In our view, merely because the issue is referred to a larger Bench everything does not grind to a halt. In our view, merely because the issue is referred to a larger Bench everything does not grind to a halt. The reference to the expression court in that order cannot in the context mean the Apex Court for the reason that the Apex Court has been conferred extraordinary powers by Article 142(1) of the Constitution so that it can do complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.” 18. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2009) 9 SCC 551 have reiterated that superior courts have power to issue direction to Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate a matter. Their Lordships have held as under: “99. We are not concerned, as it is not necessary for us to determine, whether a direction for making investigation by CBI by the superior courts of the country is permissible. As the law stands, we place on record such directions by the superior courts are permissible.” 19. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme court in State of West Bengal and others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others, (2010) 3 SCC 571 have held as under:- “70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these Constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said Articles requires great caution in its exercise. In so far as the question of issuing a direction to the CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be assed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extra-ordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. This extra-ordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.”” 20. Further learned Advocate General invites attention of this Court to the following observations made by a Constitution Bench (Five-Judges) of the apex Court in Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal (supra), (2010) 3 SCC 571 : “68. Thus, having examined the rival contentions in the context of the Constitutional Scheme, we conclude as follows: (i) to (vi) …………………….. (vii) When the Special Police Act itself provides that subject to the consent by the State, the CBI can take up investigation in relation to the crime which was otherwise within the jurisdiction of the State Police, the court can also exercise its constitutional power of judicial review and direct the CBI to take up the investigation within the jurisdiction of the State. The power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be taken away, curtailed or diluted by Section 6 of the Special Police Act. Irrespective of there being any statutory provision acting as a restriction on the powers of the Courts, the restriction imposed by Section 6 of the Special Police Act on the powers of the Union, cannot be read as restriction on the powers of the Constitutional Courts. Therefore, exercise of power of judicial review by the High Court, in our opinion, would not amount to infringement of either the doctrine of separation of power or the federal structure. 69. In the final analysis, our answer to the question referred is that a direction by the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within the territory of a State without the consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly.” 21. In Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and another v. State of Gujarat and others, (2004) 4 SCC 158 , while dealing with a case where the complainant came knocking the doors of the Court, alleging mistrial for whatever reason, the Court directed investigation and retrial, observing that Courts have always been considered to have an overriding duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, often referred to as the duty to vindicate and uphold the "majesty of the law". Due administration of justice has always been viewed as a continuous process, not confined to determination of a particular case, protecting its ability to function as a Court of law in the future, as in the case before it. 22. Taking note of its earlier observations, so made in its previous decisions, the apex Court in Jakia Nasim Ahesan & another v. State of Gujarat & others, (2011) 12 SCC 302 , reiterated that the jurisdiction of the Court to issue a writ of continuous mandamus is only to ensure that proper investigation is carried out. 23. At this juncture, we clarify that we have not expressed any opinion, with regard to the fairness or correctness of the investigation carried out by the State, which we leave it open to be considered at an appropriate stage. 24. Though today, it is not the case before us, but we may only take note of the following observations made by the apex Court in Sudipta Lenka v. State of Odisha and others, (2014) 11 SCC 527 : “14. 24. Though today, it is not the case before us, but we may only take note of the following observations made by the apex Court in Sudipta Lenka v. State of Odisha and others, (2014) 11 SCC 527 : “14. Rubabbuddin Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat, (2010) 2 SCC 200 , really, carries forward the law laid down in Gudalure M.J. Cherian, (1992) 1 SCC 397 and Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Assn., (1994) 1 SCC 616 which position finds reflection in para 60 of the report which is in the following terms : "60…..Therefore, it can safely be concluded that in an appropriate case when the court feels that the investigation by the police authorities is not in the proper direction and in order to do complete justice in the case and as the high police officials are involved in the said crime, it was always open to the court to hand over the investigation to the independent agency like CBI. It cannot be said that after the charge-sheet is submitted, the court is not empowered, in an appropriate case, to hand over the investigation to an independent agency like CBI." (Emphasis supplied) 15. The position has also been succinctly summed up in Disha to which one of us (the learned Chief Justice) was a party by holding that transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other specialised agency, notwithstanding the filing of the chargesheet, would be justified only when the Court is satisfied that on account of the accused being powerful and influential the investigation has not proceeded in a proper direction or it has been biased. Further investigation of a criminal case after the chargesheet has been filed in a competent court may affect the jurisdiction of the said Court under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence it is imperative that the said power, which, though, will always vest in a Constitutional Court, should be exercised only in situations befitting, judged on the touchstone of high public interest and the need to maintain the Rule of Law.” 25. Prominence of truth is the guiding star of judicial process, forming the foundation of justice. Hence it is imperative that the said power, which, though, will always vest in a Constitutional Court, should be exercised only in situations befitting, judged on the touchstone of high public interest and the need to maintain the Rule of Law.” 25. Prominence of truth is the guiding star of judicial process, forming the foundation of justice. What is “fair investigation”, we need not dilate, save and except, reproduce the observations made by the apex Court in Pooja Pal v. Union of India and others, (2016) 3 SCC 135 : “….The primacy of credibility and confidence in investigations and a need for complete justice and enforcement of fundamental rights judged on the touchstone of high public interest and the paramountcy of the rule of law. Cause of justice is the ultimate determinant for the course to be adopted by the investigating agency. It is judicially acknowledged that “fair trial” includes “fair investigation”, as is envisaged under Articles 20 & 21 of the Constitution 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 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 justice. “Any criminal offence is one against the society at large casting an onerous responsibility on the state, as the guardian and purveyor of human rights and protector of law to discharge its sacrosanct role responsibly and committedly, always accountable to the law abiding citizenry for any lapse. “Any criminal offence is one against the society at large casting an onerous responsibility on the state, as the guardian and purveyor of human rights and protector of law to discharge its sacrosanct role responsibly and committedly, always accountable to the law abiding citizenry for any lapse. The power of the constitutional courts to direct further investigation or reinvestigation is a dynamic component of its jurisdiction to exercise judicial review, a basic feature of the Constitution and though has to be exercised with due care and caution and informed with self imposed restraint, the plentitude and content thereof can neither be enervated nor moderated by any legislation.” “As succinctly summarised by this Court in Court in Committee for Protection of Democratic Right (supra), the extra ordinary power of the Constitutional Courts in directing the CBI to conduct investigation in a case must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations, when it is necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigation or where the incident may have national or international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and for enforcing the fundamental rights. In our comprehension, each of the determinants is consummate and independent by itself to justify the exercise of such power and is not inter-dependent on each other.” (Emphasis supplied) 26. Now, coming to the attending facts and circumstances, as brought to our notice, over a very unfortunate incident, there is an outrage, more so by that of Civil Society. Perhaps, as the public wants to believe, investigation may be tardy, lethargic, lopsided, motivated or malafide, but today we are none to comment thereupon. Outrage of Civil Society is well founded or not, today we may not adjudicate, more so in the absence of material before us, but this Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that public property stands damaged. There is huge outcry among the public of the manner in which the State SIT has conducted the investigation. One more death has taken place in police custody. Seriousness of the allegations and enormity of crime is another factor which cannot be ignored. 27. Under these circumstances, we cannot resort to the first two options, which we had posed to ourselves. One more death has taken place in police custody. Seriousness of the allegations and enormity of crime is another factor which cannot be ignored. 27. Under these circumstances, we cannot resort to the first two options, which we had posed to ourselves. Definitely, in our considered view and in view of all the aforesaid observations and backdrop, interference by this Court is required, more so when the State itself wants to have the matter investigated by an outside agency, i.e. Central Bureau of Investigation, a premier Investigating Agency of the country, on whom the State itself has reposed faith and confidence”. 38. Thus, applying the law to the given facts, for the reasons discussed supra, we are inclined to interfere and pass appropriate order. 39. Deeming it as our duty, in exercise of our writ jurisdiction, we direct as under: (i) We entrust to the Central Bureau of Investigation, investigation of FIR No.69 of 2017, dated 09.06.2017, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal code; FIR No. 70 of 2017, dated 12.06.2017, under Section 379 IPC read with Sections 32 & 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927; and FIR No.73 of 2017, dated 21.06.2017, under Section 379 IPC read with Sections 32 & 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, all registered at Police Station, Karsog, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, as also role played by the officers/officials/functionaries of the State, in connection thereto. (ii) Direct the Director CBI to forthwith constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of not less than three Officers, headed by the Superintendent of Police with two other Officers not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Investigation be started immediately. (iii) Record pertaining to the investigation conducted thus far by the CID, be handed over to the SIT of the CBI. (iv) The State shall ensure that entire evidence is preserved, protected and not tampered with. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Shimla, who is present in the Court, assures of such fact. (v) The Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, is directed to ensure that all assistance be rendered to the SIT for conducting an expeditious, fair, impartial investigation. Infrastructure, in the shape of vehicles, accommodation, shall be made available. (vi) The Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh shall ensure that appropriate action is taken against the erring officials/officers/functionaries of the State, in accordance with law. Infrastructure, in the shape of vehicles, accommodation, shall be made available. (vi) The Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh shall ensure that appropriate action is taken against the erring officials/officers/functionaries of the State, in accordance with law. Within a period of four weeks from today, he shall independently examine the matter and take appropriate action. (vii) Status report by the SIT of the CBI be filed not later than four weeks. Registry to have it placed on record and apprise the Court about the same. (viii) Liberty reserved to any person aggrieved or either of the parties to approach this Court. 40. Assistance rendered by Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Senior Advocate and Mr. L.S. Mehta, Advocate, as learned Amicus Curiae, is highly appreciable. Liberty is reserved to the learned Amicus to raise issues in an appropriate proceeding for management of forest and measures to be taken for checking illicit felling of trees. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.