JUDGMENT & ORDER : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. Heard Mr. MK Das, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. SC Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondent Nos.1, 4 & 5; Mr. N Goswami, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam for respondent No.2 and Ms. M Kechi, learned Government Advocate, Nagaland for respondent No.3. 2. By filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, Phijam Manikumar, seeks a writ of mandamus as well as habeas corpus and the following reliefs: - (i) to restrain respondent Nos.6, 7 & 8 from influencing the investigation relating to the killing of his brother, Phijam Naobi Singh, and two other persons; (ii) to carry forward the investigation under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, punish the guilty persons and to pay compensation to the petitioner and other family members for the death of his deceased brother in an unlawful manner. 3. Though a number of army officers were initially arrayed as respondent Nos.5 to 8 in the writ petition, in terms of order of this Court dated 16.05.2014, names of respondent Nos.5, 7 & 8 stood deleted and respondent No.6 was re-numbered as respondent No.5. 4. Case of the petitioner, as projected in the writ petition, is that he is the brother of Phijam Naobi Singh and a resident of Thangmeiband Hijam Dewan Leikai, Imphal West District, State of Manipur. In the month of March 2010, brother of the petitioner, Phijam Naobi Singh, along with two other persons, namely, RK Roshan @ Ronald and Thounaojam Prem @ Romen were abducted from a rented house at Diphupar village near CISHR, Char Mile area of Dimapur, Nagaland State. In this connection, a complaint was lodged by one Sri RK Laxmikanta Singh, brother of RK Roshan, before the Diphupar Police Station on 17.03.2010, which was registered as FIR No.36/2010 under sections 365/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 5. On 18.03.2010, Dimapur Police was informed by Assam Police that three bullet ridden bodies were found in the Lakhijan area under Bokajan Police Station in the district of Karbi Anglong, Assam. In this connection FIR No.40/2010 was registered at Bokajan Police Station. FIR No.40/2010 was thereafter transferred to Diphupar Police Station, Dimapur. 6. It was mentioned in the first information that the persons who had carried out the abduction were led by a woman who did not speak the local language. In this connection FIR No.40/2010 was registered at Bokajan Police Station. FIR No.40/2010 was thereafter transferred to Diphupar Police Station, Dimapur. 6. It was mentioned in the first information that the persons who had carried out the abduction were led by a woman who did not speak the local language. Though Dimapur Police had requested the army authorities of HQ 3 Corps, there was no cooperation from the army authorities. Bodies of the deceased bore extensive torture marks. 7. Subsequently, one Major T. Ravi Kiran of the Intelligence Unit of 3 Corps wrote a letter dated 12.03.2010 to the higher authorities in the army complaining that three Manipuri persons were abducted and brought to their unit on March 10, 2010 where they were tortured and shot dead during the night behind the unit mess. Major T. Ravi Kiran wrote a subsequent letter dated 25.01.2012 raising the above issue with the GOC-in-C Eastern Command. Though instructions came from the Army Headquarters to conduct inquiry, no proper inquiry was conducted. 8. According to the petitioner, later on, Major T. Ravi Kiran disclosed that respondent No.5 was the person behind the abduction and killing of the three persons and in this act, he was assisted by one Major Rubeena Kaur Keer and Major Nector, who belonged to the Intelligence Unit. The above incident was widely reported in the news papers as well as in the electronic media. 9. Since nothing happened, present writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 10. This Court by order dated 16.05.2014 had admitted the writ petition for hearing. 11. On behalf of respondent No.3, State of Nagaland, Kevisebilie Angami, Officer-in-Charge of Diphupar Police Station, Dimapur has filed an affidavit. 11.1. Before dealing with the contents of this affidavit, we would like to observe that affidavit on behalf of the State of Nagaland has been filed by an officer in the rank of Officer-in-Charge of a Police Station. Filing of affidavit on behalf of the State by an officer of such a rank is questionable. The affidavit also does not indicate as to whether the said officer was authorized by the Government of Nagaland to file the affidavit on behalf of the Government. Even the paragraphs in the affidavit were not verified. Filing of affidavit on behalf of the State by an officer of such a rank is questionable. The affidavit also does not indicate as to whether the said officer was authorized by the Government of Nagaland to file the affidavit on behalf of the Government. Even the paragraphs in the affidavit were not verified. Ordinarily, such affidavit should be filed by an officer of the rank of Commissioner/Secretary of the concerned department and certainly not by an Officer-in-Charge of a Police Station. 11.2. Having made the observation as above, we find that in this affidavit, it is stated that the Investigating Officer (IO) of Diphupar PS Case No.36/2010 had carried out certain investigation and in the course of the investigation, it came to light that on 17.03.2010 one RK Laxmikanta Singh had lodged first information before the said police station that in the midnight of 13.03.2010 (Saturday), three Manipuri persons, namely, RK Roshan (Ronald), Thounajam Prem and one unknown person were abducted by unidentified persons from the rented house of Shri Imti Imchen, retired Sub-Divisional Officer of PWD situated at Diphupar in the 4th Mile area of Dimapur. IO Tepulesa Angami in the course of investigation visited the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of available witnesses under section 161 Cr.PC. Investigation revealed that on 12.03.2010, RK Roshan along with his wife Ganga Devi had arrived from Guwahati and went to the residence of Thounajan Prem along with one of their friends. On 13.03.2010 between 01.00 a.m. to 02.00 a.m. in the night, five persons broke into their rented premises. One of them had broke open the kitchen ventilation and came inside the room whereafter, the other four miscreants, including a woman, came inside. All of them were armed with fire arms and asked the inmates whether they knew Elizabeth and Diana; to which they replied in the negative. On a query by the unidentified miscreants, Thounajan Prem stated that he and his wife do the work of tailoring and sometimes they bring goods from Burma (Myanmar) and sell those at Dimapur. RK Roshan stated that he and his wife used to run a hostel at Guwahati. Thereafter the unidentified miscreants confined the wives of the two persons along with the minor child and took away Thounajan Prem, RK Roshan and their unidentified friend. Along with the above three persons, 5 mobile handsets, some cash etc. RK Roshan stated that he and his wife used to run a hostel at Guwahati. Thereafter the unidentified miscreants confined the wives of the two persons along with the minor child and took away Thounajan Prem, RK Roshan and their unidentified friend. Along with the above three persons, 5 mobile handsets, some cash etc. were also taken away. While the male miscreants had covered their faces with camouflage, the woman did not do so. While one of the miscreants could speak Manipuri language, it appeared that he did not belong to the Meitei (Manipuri) community. 11.3. In this connection, it was also found that no demand note or phone call for ransom was received by the wives and other family members of the abducted persons. When the family members tried to contact the victims, there was no response and subsequently, the mobiles were found switched off. It is stated that the incident occurred during the intervening nights of 12.03.2010 and 13.03.2010, but the first information was lodged only on 17.03.2010. In the meanwhile, Assam Police had already recovered one body within their jurisdiction and in this connection, Bokajan Police Station Case No.40/2010 was registered under section 302/201 IPC. Subsequently, two more dead bodies were recovered on 18.03.2010. The three dead bodies were handed over by the Assam Police to Nagaland Police whereafter, the bodies were handed over to the family members. 11.4. According to the deponent, nobody could shed any light regarding the killing of the three persons. IO had obtained information through the Superintendent of Police, Dimapur that Thounajan Prem @ Romen was not found to be involved in any case whereas, RK Roshan @ Ronald was found to be involved in two cases, being FIR No.198(a)/1998 and FIR No.198(8)/2000, both relating to offences covered under sections 121/121-A IPC and section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The third abducted person, who was also killed, was later on identified as Th. Naobi, whom the petitioner claimed to be his brother, had joined the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) in the year 1981 and was arrested on 03.09.1989 in connection with FIR No.502(8)/1989 which was registered under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, 1993, provisions of the Army Act and IPC. 11.5. No family member and friends of the deceased could be contacted. They also did not come forward to provide further information. 11.5. No family member and friends of the deceased could be contacted. They also did not come forward to provide further information. Petitioner knew that his brother was arrested twice, but he did not disclose such information. According to the IO, all possible efforts were made to make a breakthrough in the case by engaging sources, but no success could be made. Accordingly, final report was submitted, being Final Report No.4/2011, dated 26.03.2011 before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate stating that a case under sections 365/302/34 IPC was found true, but no clue could be found. 12. Respondent Nos.1 & 4 have filed a common affidavit. It is stated that no army personnel, including the Intelligence Unit of 3 Corps, was involved or connected in any manner in the alleged incident of abduction and murder of Phijam Naobi Singh, brother of the petitioner, and two others in March, 2010. Regarding the letter dated 12.03.2010 of Major T. Ravi Kiran, it is stated that the alleged incident of abduction took place in the early hours of 13.03.2010 between 01.00 a.m. to 02.00 a.m. Therefore, Major T. Ravi Kiran could not have referred to this alleged incident in his letter dated 12.03.2010. Regarding the second letter dated 25.01.2012, it is stated that on receipt of such letter, the allegations were duly investigated on orders of HQ 3 Corps. As per investigation report, no such incident, as alleged by Major T. Ravi Kiran, took place in the Rangapahar Military Station premises. The investigation report revealed that the allegations made in the letter dated 25.01.2012 by Major T. Ravi Kiran were baseless and had no iota of truth. It is reiterated that no army personnel was involved in the said incident. The answering respondents have denied all the allegations made by the petitioner against army personnel and officers. References have also been made to section 125 of the Army Act, 1950 to emphasise that even if a cognizable offence is made out against an army personnel with criminal court and court martial each having jurisdiction, it shall be within the discretion of the competent authority in the army to take a decision whether the offence should be tried by a court martial or by the regular criminal court. However, this stage has not yet reached and would not arise in this case as involvement of army personnel in the alleged incident has been ruled out. However, this stage has not yet reached and would not arise in this case as involvement of army personnel in the alleged incident has been ruled out. It is further stated that army authorities were not approached by the civil police for any assistance in the investigation and, therefore, question of non-cooperation or refusal to cooperate in the investigation by the army authorities did not arise. 13. Respondent No.5 has filed a separate affidavit, but on identical lines as the affidavit of respondent Nos.1 and 4. Denying his involvement in the alleged incident, he has, however, stated that petitioner’s deceased brother was involved in terrorist activities and was arrested by the police not only under the provisions of the IPC and the Arms Act but also under the provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, 1993. Allegations made by Major T. Ravi Kiran have been denied as being totally false and baseless. 14. Petitioner has filed separate re-joinder affidavits to the counter-affidavits filed by respondent Nos.1 and 4 and 5 to which respondent Nos.1 & 4 have also filed affidavit. 15. An additional-affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos.1 & 4 to bring on record the inquest report prepared by the Executive Magistrate at Bokajan on the dead bodies of the three deceased persons on March 17/18, 2010. It is stated that no gunshot wounds were found on the dead bodies which would belie the contention of the petitioner that the three abducted persons were later on shot dead. 16. Petitioner has filed reply-affidavit to the said additional-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 4. 17. A further affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos.1 & 4 on 21.11.2017 to place on record the FIR No.40/2010 of Bokajan Police Station and 3 post mortem reports in respect of the three deceased persons. 18. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties are on pleaded lines. 18.1. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no investigation worth the name was carried out by the Diphupar Police Station and it was not justified on the part of the police to have submitted the Final Report and for the learned Magistrate to have accepted the same. Investigation carried out was extremely shoddy and it is unfortunate that till date, the truth has not come to light. Investigation carried out was extremely shoddy and it is unfortunate that till date, the truth has not come to light. He submits that present would be a fit case to direct investigation of the case by a central investigation agency. On a query by the Court as to whether such a prayer has been made in the writ petition, Mr. Das, learned counsel submits that no such prayer has been made, but he contends that Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can certainly mould the relief for the ends of justice. 18.2. Learned Govt. Advocate, Nagaland has referred to the final report submitted by the Police under section 173 Cr.PC and contends that despite notice being issued by the learned Magistrate, the informant did not appear and contest the closure report. Therefore, learned Magistrate was compelled to accept the final report. 18.3. Mr. SC Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that the writ petition lacks materials particulars and is based on hearsay evidence, like newspaper reports. Therefore, the writ petition itself is not maintainable. He further submits that reckless and unsubstantiated allegations have been made against high officials of the Indian Army whose names had to be struck off from the list of respondents following orders of the Court. He submits that no army personnel were involved in the alleged incident and it is all a figment of imagination of the petitioner. He also submits that Nagaland Police had not approached the army authorities for any assistance or information with regard to the police case. Regarding reliance placed by the petitioner on the letters allegedly written by Major T. Ravi Kiran, he submits that no reliance can be placed on such letters and certainly a writ petition could not have been filed on the basis of such letters without the petitioner fist approaching the investigating authority. He, however, adds that since allegations were made on the basis of the letters of Major T. Ravi Kiran, army authorities had conducted a detailed inquiry and upon such inquiry, it has come to light that the allegations made were totally baseless. 18.4. He, however, adds that since allegations were made on the basis of the letters of Major T. Ravi Kiran, army authorities had conducted a detailed inquiry and upon such inquiry, it has come to light that the allegations made were totally baseless. 18.4. On a query by the Court as to whether the army authorities would have any objection for further investigation of the case by the investigating authority, he submits that it is a matter of investigation and the army would have no objection to such further investigation by the investigating agency. 19. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Also perused the materials on record. 20. Relevant facts leading to registration of FIR No.36/2010 by the Diphupar Police Station have already been taken note of. We have also noticed recovery of three dead bodies by the Bokajan Police and handing over of the same to Nagaland Police. We find from the record that IO had recorded the statements of RK Laxmikanta, Johnson Saibam, Th. Sanayai Singh, Prema Devi, Sushma @ Chandra Devi and Toshi Imchen. Thereafter on 26.03.2011, final report was submitted by stating that though all possible efforts were made to make a breakthrough in the case by engaging sources, no clue could be found. Therefore, it was stated that the case under sections 365/302/34 IPC was found true but no clue could be found. Case would be reviewed/revised/revived as and when any clue or evidence came to light. 21. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur in his order dated 10.09.2014 noted that though notice was issued to the complainant, he did not appear and did not file any objection. After perusing the case record, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded that he found no materials on record to take a view contrary to that of the IO. Accordingly, the final report was accepted whereafter, the case was closed with the observation that it would be revived as and when any clue or evidence could be detected in the near future. 22. We have perused the post mortem reports of the three deceased persons, which certainly indicate ante-mortem injuries of serious nature. Accordingly, the final report was accepted whereafter, the case was closed with the observation that it would be revived as and when any clue or evidence could be detected in the near future. 22. We have perused the post mortem reports of the three deceased persons, which certainly indicate ante-mortem injuries of serious nature. Though we do not approve of the attempt made by the petitioner to give a particular colour to the unfortunate incident without having any materials on record yet, the fact remains that three persons were abducted in the dead of night by unidentified persons whose dead bodies were thereafter found by Bokajan Police. We have seen the casual manner in which the affidavit was filed by the Officer-in-Charge of Diphupar Police Station on behalf of the State of Nagaland without any authority of the Government of Nagaland. On going through the case record, we find that the investigation that was carried out by the IO was extremely shoddy and perfunctory and it is not very difficult to comprehend that on the basis of such investigation, nothing concrete would ever have emerged; therefore, it is no surprise that without making any extra effort, the IO filed the final report which was accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there was certainly scope for the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to have directed further investigation having regard to the provisions contained in section 173(8) Cr.PC. 23. In Pooja Pal Vs. Union of India, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 135 , which was a case relating to murder of a sitting MLA of Uttar Pradesh Assembly and where the prayer was made for securing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Supreme Court observed that a trial encompasses investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and retrial i.e., the entire range of scrutiny, including crime detection and adjudication on the basis thereof. Jurisprudentially, the guarantee under Article 21 embraces both the life and liberty of the accused as well as interest of the victim, his near and dear ones as well as of the community at large and, therefore, cannot be alienated from each other with levity. It is judicially acknowledged that fair trial includes fair investigation as envisaged by Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is judicially acknowledged that fair trial includes fair investigation as envisaged by Articles 20 and 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 to order further investigation or reinvestigation as the case may be to discover the truth so as to prevent miscarriage of justice. The entire emphasis during investigation is to bring out the truth of the case before the Court of competent jurisdiction to ensure that the guilty are punished and punished adequately. Though a Court’s satisfaction of want of proper, fair, impartial and effective investigation eroding its credence and reliability is the precondition for a discretion for further investigation or reinvestigation, submission of the charge-sheet ipso facto or 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 analysed to decide the needfulness of further investigation or reinvestigation to unravel the truth and mete out justice to the parties. The prime concern and the endeavour of the Court of law is to secure justice on the basis of true facts which ought to be unearthed through a committed, resolved and a competent investigating agency. 24. Having regard to the above and considering the unsatisfactory manner of investigation carried out by the IO, we feel that Diphupar PS Case No.40/2010 needs to be further investigated and for this purpose, investigation should be conducted or handled by higher functionaries of the State. Accordingly, we direct the Commissioner/Secretary of Home Department, Government of Nagaland to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by an officer above the rank of Superintendent of Police within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from today whereafter the SIT shall proceed with the further investigation of the above case and take it to its logical conclusion. In the event witness have to be summoned from Manipur and other places, adequate security should be provided to such witness. If the SIT seeks cooperation and assistance of the army authorities, the same shall be extended by the army authorities. 25. Since investigation of the case in the true sense is yet to commence, we do not feel persuaded to order compensation to the family members at this stage. 26. If the SIT seeks cooperation and assistance of the army authorities, the same shall be extended by the army authorities. 25. Since investigation of the case in the true sense is yet to commence, we do not feel persuaded to order compensation to the family members at this stage. 26. With the above observation and directions, writ petition is disposed of. 27. Registry to return the record.