JUDGMENT Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J. By means of present criminal writ petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs: (i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to transfer and hand over the investigation of case crime no. 23 of 2017 under Section 302 of IPC at P.S. Rajpur, District Dehradun to an independent agency i.e. Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct fair and expeditious investigation. (ii) To call for the progress report of the investigation in case crime no. 23 of 2017,under Section 302 of IPC, at P.S. Rajpur, District Dehradun. (iii) Any other order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Factual matrix of the case is that Aanchal (daughter of the petitioner Anil Kohli) fell in love with the sixth respondent Rahul Pandhi and got married with him on 18th March 2008. Aanchal Pandhi was found dead under mysterious circumstances in the intervening night of 13th /14th February 2017 at her matrimonial home. Sixth respondent Rahul Pandhi went to the police station and informed that his wife has committed suicide. The police did not lodge any FIR immediately, but rushed to the site and prepared the inquest report. The panches, including the father of the deceased (Anil Kohli), were present at the time of preparation of inquest report. The Investigating Officer has mentioned in his report that this case appears to be a case of suicide by hanging. 3. The autopsy on the dead body of Aanchal was conducted by a team of Medical Officers namely,Dr. Kush Aeron and Dr. Vijay Bhaunthiyal on14.02.2017, at about 02:30 P.M. The cause of death as mentioned in the autopsy report was asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. The Medical Officers found following ante mortem injuries on the dead body at the time of conducting autopsy: i) Rigor mortis established. ii) Eyes closed and cloudy. iii) Ligature mark around the neck. Face pale. iv) Saliva drooling noted (dried) running down from left angle of mouth. v) Neck elongated. Eye closed. vi) Ligature mark below the chin and above the thyoid going backwards interrupted oblique towards right side. vii) Base of the groove is brownish and is hard. Subcutaneous tissues underneath ligature mark ‘D'. viii) The size of ligature 0.25 cm, 4 cm below left ear. v) Neck elongated. Eye closed. vi) Ligature mark below the chin and above the thyoid going backwards interrupted oblique towards right side. vii) Base of the groove is brownish and is hard. Subcutaneous tissues underneath ligature mark ‘D'. viii) The size of ligature 0.25 cm, 4 cm below left ear. KNOT – 3.5 cm (left side) 5 cm below right ear. 2.5 cm ligature, 5 cm below chin. 4. On the unnatural death of Ms. Aanchal, unfortunate father of the girl, i.e., petitioner Anil Kohli, lodged the FIR with the allegations that it was not a case of suicide, rather the husband of deceased (sixth respondent) has committed murder of his daughter with the help of his family members, who have been arrayed as respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 namely, Kiran Pandhi, Indrani Pandhi and Rachna Pandhi (mother-in-law and sisters-in-law of the deceased respectively). 5. Initially the FIR was lodged against the accused-respondents under Section 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet under Section 306 of IPC in respect of accused-sixth respondent Rahul Pandhi onlyand the rest of the accused (respondent nos. 7, 8 & 9herein) have been exonerated. It is alleged by the petitioner that after marriage, Rahul Pandhi (husband of the deceased) fell in love with a girl (name withheld) due to which the relations between the husband and wife turned sour and it was the reason that the sixth respondent committed murder of his daughter. 6. It is contended that the sixth respondent is an influential person and had high contacts with the bureaucrats and ministers of the State, therefore, the Investigating Officer has not conducted the investigation in fair and proper manner and failed to collect credible evidence against the sixth respondent. 7. Photographs of the place of occurrence have been annexed with the writ petition. It depicts from the photographs that two sleeping mattresses are lying on the floor and the dead body of Aanchal is hanging from aceiling fan with her feet touching the ground. However, her feet are touching the ground. Near the feet of the deceased an empty bucket was lying. In one of the photographs, the husband of the deceased is seen opening the knot of the chunni wrapped around the neck. The photographs show that the deceased was sleeping prior to the occurrence. However, her feet are touching the ground. Near the feet of the deceased an empty bucket was lying. In one of the photographs, the husband of the deceased is seen opening the knot of the chunni wrapped around the neck. The photographs show that the deceased was sleeping prior to the occurrence. It is further contended that after committing the crime, the sixth respondent fledaway from the spot by jumping the back wall of the housing society, which act of his was captured in the CCTV camera installed there. A CD containing the CCTV footage has also been annexed with the writ petition. 8. Few photographs show that the sixth respondent is in a function along with the then Chief Minister of the State and the District Magistrate, Dehradun. It is contended that since the sixth respondent is having high connections with the bureaucrats and politicians of the State, he has succeeded to obtain a favourable charge sheet for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, though the FIR was initially lodged under Section 302 of IPC. It is contended that charge sheet under Section 306 of IPC was submitted without there being any evidence to the effect that it was a case of abetment of suicide by the husband of the deceased. It is further contended that the submission of charge sheet against the sixth respondent is a camouflage. 9. It is further contended that during investigation the sixth respondent was released on bail. Few glaring illegalities in the investigation, as enumerated in the writ petition, are pointed out by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The same are reproduced hereunder: i) The photograph of the deceased Aanchal while hanging shows that her husband Rahul Pandhi tempered the evidence by removing the knot from her neck. It was very shocking and astonishing that the Investigating Officer had allowed Rahul Pandhi to temper with the evidence on the crime scene, which is nothing but unfairness and mockery of investigation. ii) From the very date the police during the investigation is harping that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling fan with the aid of bucket lying in the room where the deceased Aanchal was hanged. ii) From the very date the police during the investigation is harping that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling fan with the aid of bucket lying in the room where the deceased Aanchal was hanged. The photographs of deceased Aanchal while hanging shows that the ceiling fan in a room in which it was alleged that she had hanged herself was intact without any bent or dent upon it. Moreover, as it was alleged that the deceased Aanchal committed suicide by climbing on a bucket, the bucket was lying 2 or 3 ft. away from the deceased and if a deceased commits suicide by standing on a bucket, the position of bucket must be near his/her legs or the bucket must be dented with the weight of deceased. iii) Moreover, in the photographs of deceased Aanchal while hanging shows that there was stain of blood on the floor. As per medical jurisprudence, while committing suicide by hanging, blood does not come out from the body of deceased. As per the photographs, there is an exorbitant evidence to remove the blood stains from the floor by washing the floor. iv) The I.O. had not bothered to ask a question from accused Rahul Pandhi that why had he opened the knot from the neck of deceased Aanchal, nor the accused was questioned qua the injuries sustained by deceased Aanchal in her hand and arms. v) The I.O. just to save the skin of accused persons from the clutches of Section 302 IPC is trying and moulding the case under Section 306 IPC from the fact that I.O. had not arrested the accused persons up till date since the lodgment of the FIR, i.e. 14.02.2017. The I.O. is trying to shield her investigation with the aid of the postmortem report of deceased. In the postmortem report the ligature mark upon a deceased shows brownish and hard, while if a person was hanged with a cloth, the ligature mark must be soft. Moreover, in the postmortem report, the ligature Mark is “D" in shape which proves from the photograph of the deceased while lying on the floor. This proves that the deceased was firstly strangulated by a hard object and thereafter to show it as a suicide case she was hanged by a soft cloth from the ceiling fan. Moreover, in the postmortem report, the ligature Mark is “D" in shape which proves from the photograph of the deceased while lying on the floor. This proves that the deceased was firstly strangulated by a hard object and thereafter to show it as a suicide case she was hanged by a soft cloth from the ceiling fan. vi) The most important evidence in the investigation, which the police always ignored, was that accused Rahul Pandhi was came under a CCTV footage of the Society (Pacific Hills Apartment) where he and deceased Aanchal Pandhi were living together and as per CCTV footage he was seen jumping the back wall of the society at about 03:03 a.m. in the morning during the intervening night of incident. vii) The police even has not investigated that when as per CCTV footage both accused Rahul and deceased Aanchal entered into a flat on 13.02.2017,at 12:52 p.m., in the night and thereafter at 03:03a.m. in the night almost after two hours, Rahul wentoutside the flat from the backside by jumping over the wall which was evidently clear from CCTV footage. viii) When both Rahul and Aanchal entered into their flat together on 13.02.2017 and on the same night Aanchal was active on the Facebook at 01:47 a.m., it means she was in good mental health and, in no case, can commit suicide and even as per the evidence placed on record in the present petition it is clearly evident that it was not a case of suicidal death, but the police agency from the very first date by ignoring all the credible evidence trying to mould the case of suicide. ix) Civil police intentionally discarded that evidence that nearest police chowki from the place of incidentis just 100 meters away, then why the accused Rahul jumped from the back wall of the society and chose not to go from the front gate. x) As per the CCTV footage of Rahul, he left the flat by jumping from the backside at 03:03 a.m. in the morning, then why he informed the police about the incident at 06:30 a.m. in the morning when the nearest police chowki is just 100 meters from the place of incident. x) As per the CCTV footage of Rahul, he left the flat by jumping from the backside at 03:03 a.m. in the morning, then why he informed the police about the incident at 06:30 a.m. in the morning when the nearest police chowki is just 100 meters from the place of incident. xi) As per the medical jurisprudence while hanging both the legs of a person must be tilted towards inside, but in the present case, both the legs of deceased leaned outwards which means that deceased Aanchal was firstly strangulated by accused persons and just to balance the posture of body her legs were deliberately tilted outwards. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. 11. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that though after completion of investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet only against sixth respondent Rahul Pandhi under Section 306 of IPC, but the Investigating Officer has not collected the complete material evidence to bring home the guilt of the culprits. On these grounds prayer has been made that since the sixth respondent has political and bureaucratic connections and high approach, therefore, investigation be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation for fair and proper investigation. 12. Ms. Sweta Chaubey, Addl. Superintendent of Police, Dehradun (I.O. of the case) has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the State. In para 6 of said counter affidavit it is stated that during the course of investigation one diary written by the deceased Aanchal Pandhi was also taken into possession and from the perusal of the said diary it came into light that the deceased was harassed and tortured by her husband. The CCTV footage (DBR) of the place of incident was sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh and report is still awaited. In Para 8 of the counter affidavit it is stated that as per the autopsy report the cause of death of Aanchal is ‘asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging'. It is contended that there is no whisper of strangulation in the postmortem report, which was conducted by panel of two Medical Officers. In Para 8 of the counter affidavit it is stated that as per the autopsy report the cause of death of Aanchal is ‘asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging'. It is contended that there is no whisper of strangulation in the postmortem report, which was conducted by panel of two Medical Officers. It is further contended that on the date of occurrence, sixth respondent Rahul was in constant touch over phone with a girl (name is not being disclosed) from 12:00 a.m. till 01.30 a.m. and prior to this between October 2016 to January 2017, both of them had talked over phone for more than 500 times and the statement of said girl recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been annexed as Annexure C.A. 8 to the counter affidavit. 13. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the CBI (respondent no. 5), stating therein, that the civil police had conducted the investigation of the case. The Medical Officers, who have conducted the autopsy on the dead body, have suggested that the death of Aanchal was asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. It is also stated that considering the fact that it is a case of suicide, the investigation through CBI is not warranted. It is further stated that CBI is already overburdened with a number of important cases and is having acute shortage of manpower, therefore, it is not possible for the CBI to conduct the investigation of the case. Also, the present case is not of such importance so as to warrant CBI probe into it. 14. Respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 were granted time to file their counter affidavit, but despite the time granted, no counter affidavit has been filed by them. Supplementary affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the petitioner showing following lapses in the investigation: (a) The deliberate botching of investigation and the desire to protect the influential accused persons by the police officials can be seen from the fact that when the panchnama was prepared, the evidences were clearly overlooked by the police officials which were available at the crime scene. (b) As per the panchnama, the dead body was hanging, the feet of the deceased were touching the ground and the hands and legs were straight. The dead body was removed from ceiling fan and kept on the floor by the accused husband. (b) As per the panchnama, the dead body was hanging, the feet of the deceased were touching the ground and the hands and legs were straight. The dead body was removed from ceiling fan and kept on the floor by the accused husband. However, the police officials have deliberately failed to record as to who had cut the knot from the ceiling fan to remove the dead body and kept the deceased on floor. It is submitted that the available photos and records which were taken of the dead body, the accused no. 6 Rahul Pandhi had opened the knot, which clearly shows that the evidence at the crime scene was tampered and the said act of the accused no. 6 was not recorded in the panchnama which is a clear indication that there was a clear intent to shield the accused persons. (c) In such situations, the parents and family members of the deceased are informed by the police officials at the first instance, however, the parents of the deceased were not informed immediately by the police officials after they received the information regarding the death of Aanchal nor any information was given to the parents and family members of the deceased by accused no. 6, when he allegedly saw the deceased hanging with the ceiling fan. It is submitted that the knot had been opened even before the arrival of parents of the deceased, which establish that material evidence was deliberately tampered. (d) as per the description of the deceased mentioned in the panchnama, her hair were open and the length of her hair were upto the neck and were golden colored, her eyes, nose and ears were normal and the deceased was slim and of strong built. It is submitted that the exact description of the deceased involving her eyes, nose, ears, and the saliva which was drooling out from her mouth were deliberately not recorded in the panchnama. (e) There was blood lying upon the floor on the crime scene, however, the same was not mentioned in the panchnama. It is submitted that the blood from the crime scene was collected later which got matched with the DNA of the mother of the deceased as mentioned in the forensic report. It is submitted that this finding establishes that the blood was that of the deceased. It is submitted that the blood from the crime scene was collected later which got matched with the DNA of the mother of the deceased as mentioned in the forensic report. It is submitted that this finding establishes that the blood was that of the deceased. (f) The body of the deceased was cremated within 24 hours, prior to recording of the FIR, on the instructions of police officials thereby eliminating possibility of verifications and securing medical forensic evidence by other medical experts regarding the cause of death. (g) There were marks of injuries on the body of deceased which were seen by parents of the deceased and are also visible in the photograph, nowhere injuries have been mentioned in the panchnama. It is submitted that the blood found on the site of occurrence in conjunction with the injuries found on the body of the deceased is material evidence which were deliberately omitted by the police. Further, it is submitted that the panchnama is completely silent about the presence of S.H.O. of P.S. Rajpur and other police officials in whose presence the door lock was found broken. It is pertinent to note that the panchnama has not been signed by the S.H.O. of P.S. Rajpur, Dehradun. (h) On seeing the crime scene, it is observed that the crime scene was tampered and things were disturbed, the laptop was lying broken which is indicative of an assault or scuffle which has not been recorded by the police in the panchnama. (i) It is humbly submitted that in the case when no eyewitness is available at the crime scene, then it is the duty of the investigating officer or police officials to conduct the investigation cautiously in order to complete all the narratives. It is submitted that the police deliberately ignored material evidence and did not faithfully and diligently collected evidence, rather, allowed destruction of evidence. (j) The police officials deliberately did not seize the material evidence and no seizure memo was prepared by the police at the scene of crime. It is further submitted that the police has also failed to mention as to who has done photography of the dead body and whether chip of the camera or phone through which the photography was done was seized or not. It is further submitted that the police has also failed to mention as to who has done photography of the dead body and whether chip of the camera or phone through which the photography was done was seized or not. It was opined by the doctors that the blood may come out of the mouth due to tongue biting, neither the police recorded the state of the body of the deceased nor the doctors conducting postmortem did the checking of the body of the deceased. This is especially important as the tongue has been stated to be indrawn, which is clearly visible in the photograph. It is further submitted that the blood stains were found on the floor, while it should have been on the clothes as well as around the mouth of the deceased along with saliva if it was the result of tongue biting. It is pertinent to note here that the floor of the crime scene was wet and was bearing shoe prints and the said fact is clearly depicted from the crime scene photographs but there is no mention of the same in the panchnama. These are the lapses shown by the petitioner in the investigation in the criminal writ petition. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Bimal Gurung vs Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 504. He also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 29.06.2017, passed by this Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) no. 1300 of 2015, Suresh Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand and others; Writ Petition (Criminal) no. 924 of 2017, Kiran Pandhi and others vs State of Uttarakhand and others decided on 11.07.2017 and Writ Petition (Criminal) no. 1050 of 2018, Smt. Kalawati Rawat vs State of Uttarakhand and others decided on 24.07.2018. 16. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the State police had failed to conduct a fair and proper investigation of the case, which is the backbone of prosecution case, therefore, in absence of proper material evidence there are no chances of conviction of the accused persons. It is also contended that only the sixth respondent has been charge-sheeted under Section 306 of IPC. Those who are deeply connected with the commission of crime have been exonerated by the Investigating Officer. It is also contended that only the sixth respondent has been charge-sheeted under Section 306 of IPC. Those who are deeply connected with the commission of crime have been exonerated by the Investigating Officer. It is further contended that since the sixth respondent is a highly influential person and has high connections with the bureaucrats and ministers of the State, therefore, a fair and impartial investigation was not expected from the Investigating Officer in the present case. 17. In Bimal Gurung's case (supra), though the Hon'ble Apex Court had dismissed the said case, but laid down three contingencies where the court could exercise its constitutional power to transfer the investigation from State Police to CBI. The three conditions are: (i) where high officials of State authorities are involved, or (ii) where the accusation itself is against the top officials of the investigating agency thereby allowing them to influence the investigation, or (iii) where investigation prima facie is found to be tainted/biased. 18. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the case of Bimal Gurung (supra) the conditions as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for directions to transfer the investigation to the CBI were not found present, but in the case in hand, all these conditions as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court are fulfilled. 19. From a perusal of the contents of the FIR, postmortem report, footage of the scene of occurrence as well as the photographs showing the sixth respondent in a party with the bureaucrats and the then Chief Minister of the State, it cannot be ruled out that the sixth respondent has no political and bureaucratic connections. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the sixth respondent is a person having high approach. This fact has not been asserted in the writ petition, as also in the grounds taken in the writ petition and allegations made therein, which have not been refuted by the private respondents. Though the Investigating Officer has right to state that a fair and proper investigation has already been conducted in the matter and the charge sheet under Section 306 of IPC has been submitted, it is important to note here that the charge sheet has been submitted without waiting for the FSL report. Though the Investigating Officer has right to state that a fair and proper investigation has already been conducted in the matter and the charge sheet under Section 306 of IPC has been submitted, it is important to note here that the charge sheet has been submitted without waiting for the FSL report. When the sixth respondent was released on bail in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC before submission of charge sheet there was no occasion for the Investigating Officer to submit the charge sheet in respect of an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. This creates doubt upon the Investigating Officer, who carried out the investigation of the case. 20. It is contended that thereafter the matter was transferred to the CBCID, but it has not come on record as to what progress has been made in the investigational legedly conducted by the CBCID. When the matter was transferred to the CBCID, the investigation should be handed over to the CBCID and the civil police should not have conducted investigation in the matter. 21. I have gone through the facts of the case and the averments made in the writ petition and after perusal of the report and considering the ratio of the judgment (supra) as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimal Gurung's case (supra), all these three contingencies are present in the case. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, it is a fit case where the investigation of the case be transferred to the CBI. 22. In Dayal Singh and others vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 263, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that investigation being defective and motivated, will not give the benefit to the accused to the extent of his acquittal. 23. In Hema vs. State (2013) 10 SCC 192 , Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: “10. It is settled law that not only fair trial, but fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious and it is the immediate requirement of rule of law. As observed by this Court in Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat the Investigating Officer cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in a tainted and biased manner. Accordingly, investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious and it is the immediate requirement of rule of law. As observed by this Court in Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat the Investigating Officer cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in a tainted and biased manner. It was further observed that where non-interference of the Court would ultimately result in failure of justice, the Court must interfere. Though reliance was placed on the above decision in Babubhai case by the appellant, it is not in dispute that in that case, the High Court has concluded by giving detailed reasons that the investigation has been totally one-sided based on mala fides. Further, in that case, the charge-sheets filed by the Investigating Agency in both the cases were against the same set of accused. This was not the situation in the case on hand. Though the State Crime Branch initiated investigation, subsequently, the same was taken over by the CBI considering the volume and importance of the offence. 24. No doubt, C.B.I. is overburdened due to many other important cases but due to the reason that C.B.I. has limited manpower and is therefore unable totake investigation in its hand cannot be a ground for not transferring the investigation to C.B.I. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pooja Pal vs. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 135 has held as under: “50. The authorities cited at the Bar present the precedential spectrum of the curial jurisprudence in the context of entrustment of investigation to an instrumentality other than the local/state police agencies. 51. In Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh vs State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158 , commonly adverted to as “Best Bakery Case" on the theme, the aspects of perfunctory and partisan role of the investigating agency as well as improper conduct of the trial involved by the public prosecutor surfaced for scrutiny. Though the trial was over resulting in acquittal of the accused persons mainly as the purported eye- witnesses had resiled from the statements made by them under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Code") during the investigation coupled with faulty and biased investigation and laconical trial, this Court responded to the request for a fresh trial made by the State and one of the eye-witnesses, Zahira. It was pleaded inter alia that when a large number of witnesses have turned hostile, it ought to raise a reasonable suspicion that they were being threatened or coerced. Apart from alleging that the prosecution did not take steps to protect the star witnesses, it was contended as well that the trial court had failed to exercise its power under Section 311 of the Code to recall and reexamine them as their testimony was essential to unearth the truth and record a just decision in the case. 52. The casual decision of the public prosecutor in Zahira Habibulla Sheikh case to drop amaterial witness, a measure approved by the trial court also came to be criticized. The lapse of non-examination of the injured eye-witnesses, who were kept away from the trial, was also highlighted. It was alleged that the partisan witnesses had been examined to favour the accused persons resulting in a denial of fair trial. 53. This Court in the above disquieting backdrop in Zahira Habibulla Sheikh case, did underline that discovery, vindication and establishment of truth were the avowed purposes underlying the existence of the courts of justice. Apart from indicating that the principles of a fair trial permeate the common law in both civil and criminal contexts, this Court underscored the necessity of a delicate judicial balancing of the competing interests in a criminal trial - the interests of the accused and the public and to a great extent that too of the victim, at the same time not losing the sight of public interest involved in the prosecution of persons who commit offences. 54. It was propounded in Zahira Habibulla case that in a criminal case, the fate of the proceedings cannot always be left entirely in the hands of the parties, crimes being public wrongs in breach and violation of public rights and duties, which affect the whole community and are harmful to the society in general. That the concept of fair trial entails the triangulation of the interest of the accused, the victim, society and that the community acts through the state and the prosecuting agency was authoritatively stated. This Court observed that the interests of the society are not to be treated completely with disdain and as persona non grata. That the concept of fair trial entails the triangulation of the interest of the accused, the victim, society and that the community acts through the state and the prosecuting agency was authoritatively stated. This Court observed that the interests of the society are not to be treated completely with disdain and as persona non grata. It was remarked as well that due administration of justice is always viewed as a continuous process, not confined to the determination of a particular case so much so that a court must cease to be a mute spectator and a mere recording machine but become a participant in the trial evincing intelligence and active interest and elicit all relevant materials necessary for reaching the correct conclusion, to find out the truth and administer justice with fairness and impartiality both to the parties and to the community. 55. In Zahira Habibulla case while highlighting the courts' overriding duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, it was enunciated as well, that they cannot turn a blind eye to vexatious and oppressive conduct, discernable in relation to the proceedings. That the principles of rule of law and due process are closely linked with human rights protection, guaranteeing a fair trial, primarily aimed at ascertaining the truth, was stated. It was held as well, that the society at large and the victims or their family members and relatives have an inbuilt right to be dealt fairly in a criminal trial and the denial thereof is as much injustice to the accused as to the victim and the society. 56. Dwelling upon the uncompromising significance and the worth of witnesses in the perspective of a fair trial, the following revealing comments of Bentham were extracted in paragraph 41: “41. “Witnesses", as Bentham said: are the eyes and ears of justice. Hence, the importance and primacy of the quality of trial process. If the witness himself is incapacitated from acting as eyes and ears of justice, the trial gets putrefied and paralysed, and it no longer can constitute a fair trial. The incapacitation may be due to several factors like the witness being not in a position for reasons beyond control to speak the truth in the court or due to negligence or ignorance or some corrupt collusion. The incapacitation may be due to several factors like the witness being not in a position for reasons beyond control to speak the truth in the court or due to negligence or ignorance or some corrupt collusion. Time has become ripe to act on account of numerous experiences faced by courts on account of frequent turning of witnesses as hostile, either due to threats coercion, lures and monetary considerations at the instance of those in power, their henchmen and hirelings, political count and patronage and innumerable other corrupt practices ingeniously adopted to smother and stifle truth and realities coming out to surface rendering truth and justice to become ultimate causalities. Broader public and societal interests require that the victims of the crime who are not ordinarily parties to prosecution and the interests of State represented by their prosecuting agencies do not suffer even in slot process but irreversibly and irretrievably, which if allowed would undermine and destroy public confidence in the administration of justice, which may ultimately pave way for anarchy, oppression and injustice resulting in complete breakdown and collapse of the edifice of rule of law, enshrined and jealously guarded and protected by the Constitution. There comes the need for protecting the witness. Time has come when serious and undiluted thoughts are to be bestowed for protecting witnesses so that ultimate truth is presented before the court and justice triumphs and that the trial is not reduced to a mockery. The State has a definite role to play in protecting the witnesses, to start with at least in sensitive cases involving those in power, who have political patronage and could wield muscle and money power, to avert the trial getting tainted and derailed and truth becoming a causality. As a protector of its citizens it has to ensure that during a trial in court the witness could safely depose the truth without any fear of being haunted by those against whom he has deposed." 57. It was underlined Zahira Habibulla case that if ultimately the truth is to be arrived at, the eyes and ears of justice have to be protected so that the interest of justice do not get incapacitated in the sense of making the proceedings before the courts, mere mock trials. It was underlined Zahira Habibulla case that if ultimately the truth is to be arrived at, the eyes and ears of justice have to be protected so that the interest of justice do not get incapacitated in the sense of making the proceedings before the courts, mere mock trials. While elucidating that a court ought to exercise its powers under Section 311 of the Code and Section 165 of the Evidence Act judicially and with circumspection, it was held that such invocation ought to be only to sub-serve the cause of justice and the public interest by eliciting evidence in aid of a just decision and to uphold the truth. It was proclaimed that though justice is depicted to be blindfolded, it is only a veil not to see who the party before it is, while pronouncing judgment on the cause brought before it by enforcing the law and administer justice and not to ignore or turn the attention away from the truth of the cause or the lis before it, in disregard of its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice. That any indifference, inaction or lethargy displayed in protecting the right of an ordinary citizen, more particularly when a grievance is expressed against the mighty administration, would erode the public faith in the judicial system was underlined. Itwas highlighted that the courts exist to do justice to the persons who are affected and therefore they cannot afford to get swayed by the abstract technicalities and close their eyes to the factors which need to be positively probed and noticed. The following statement in Jennison vs. Baker, was recalled: “…The law should not be seen to sit by limply, while those who defy it go free, and those who seek its protection lose hope." 58. It was declared in Zahira Habibulla case that the courts have to ensure that the accused persons are punished and that the might or the authority of the state is not used to shield themselves and their men and it should be ensured that they do not wield such powers, which under the Constitution has to be held only in trust for the public and society at large. That if any deficiency in investigation or prosecution is visible or can be perceived by lifting the veil covering such deficiency, the courts have to deal with the same with an iron hand appropriately within the framework of law was underlined. 59. Referring to its earlier decision in Karnel Singh vs. State of M.P., it was reiterated that in a case of a defective investigation, the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence and may have to adopt an active and analytical role to ensure that truth is found by having recourse to Section 311 of the Code or at a later stage also resorting to Section 391 instead of throwing hands in the air in despair. It recalled as well its observations in Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar & others, that the courts are installed for justice oriented mission and thus if a negligent investigation or omissions or lapses due to perfunctory investigation are not effectively rectified, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken in the law enforcing agency and also in the institution devised for administration of justice. 60. Though, as referred to hereinabove, trial was completed and the accused persons were acquitted, in the textual facts, this Court in Zahira Habibulla case did direct retrial as prayed for, to avoid subversion of the justice delivery system and ordered the investigating agency or those supervising the investigation to act in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code as the circumstances would so warrant. 61. The observations and the propositions, though made in the backdrop of a request for retrial, those pertaining to the essentiality of a fair and complete investigation and trial as well as the solemn duty of the courts to ensure the discernment of truth to administer even handed justice as institutions of trust of public faith and confidence, are in our estimate, of universal application and binding effect, transcending the factual settings of a case. An adverse deduction vis-à-vis the quality of investigation and/a trial trivializing the cause of justice, is however the essential pre-requisite, for such remedial intervention by way of further investigation, reinvestigation, additional evidence, retrial etc. to be made objectively but assuredly for the furtherance of the salutary objectives of the justice dispensing system as contemplated in law, it being of paramount pre-eminence. 62. This Court in Mohd. Hussain vs State (Govt. to be made objectively but assuredly for the furtherance of the salutary objectives of the justice dispensing system as contemplated in law, it being of paramount pre-eminence. 62. This Court in Mohd. Hussain vs State (Govt. of NCT of Dehli), (2012) 9 SCC 408 , was also seized of a situation imploring for a retrial following the termination of the prosecution principally on account of delay, when juxtaposed to the demand for justice in cases involving grave crimes affecting the society at large. The offence involved was under Sections 302/307/120-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and had perpetrated an explosion in a passenger carrying bus. This Court amongst others recalled its observations in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1194) 3 SCC569 that while dispensing justice, the courts should keep in mind not only the liberty of the accused but also the interest of the victim and their near and dear ones and above all the collective interest of the community and the safety of the nation, so that the public may not lose faith in the system of judicial administration and indulge in private retribution. It, however, also took note of its ruling in State of M.P. v. Bhooraji, (2001) 7 SCC 679 that (SCC p. 685, para 8) a de novo trial should be the last resort and that too only when such a course becomes desperately indispensable and should be limited to the extreme exigency to avert a failure of justice. It noted with approval the observation in P. Ramachandra Rao vs State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578 that it is neither advisable nor feasible nor judicially permissible to draw or prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings and that the criminal courts are not obliged to terminate the trial or criminal proceedings merely on account of lapse of time. That such time-limits cannot and will not by themselves be treated by any court as a bar to further continuance of the trial or proceedings or to terminate the same and acquit or discharge the accused, was emphatically underlined. Reference too was made of the decision in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh. 63. Vis-à-vis the notions of “speedy trial" and “fair trial" as the integral constituents of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it was observed in Mohd. Hussain vs State (Govt. Reference too was made of the decision in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh. 63. Vis-à-vis the notions of “speedy trial" and “fair trial" as the integral constituents of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it was observed in Mohd. Hussain vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2012) 9 SCC 408 that there was a qualitative difference between the right to speedy trial and the right of the accused to fair trial. While pointing out that unlike the accused's right of fair trial, the deprivation of the right to speedy trial does not per se prejudice the accused in defending himself, it was proclaimed that mere lapse of several years since the commencement of prosecution by itself, would not justify the discontinuance of prosecution or dismissal of the indictment. It was stated in no uncertain terms that the factors concerning the accused's right to speedy trial have to be counterpoised with the impact of the crime on the society and the confidence of the people in the judicial system. It was noted that speedy trial secures rights to an accused but it does not preclude the rights of public justice. It was exposited that the nature and gravity of the crime, persons involved, social impact and societal needs must be weighed along with the right of the accused to speedy trial and if the balance tilts in favour of the former, the long delay in conclusion of trial should not operate against the continuation of the prosecution but if the right of the accused in the facts and circumstances of the case and the exigencies or situation leans the balance in his favour, the prosecution may be brought to end. It was held that the guiding factor for a retrial essentially has to be the demand of justice. It was emphasised that while protecting the right of an accused to fair trial and due process of law, the interest of the public at large who seek protection of law ought not to be altogether overlooked so much so, that it results in loss of hope in the legal system. Retrial in the facts of the case was ordered. 64. Retrial in the facts of the case was ordered. 64. The content and scope of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct investigation by CBI in a cognizable offence, alleged to have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the State, without the consent of the State Government fell for scrutiny of this Court in State of W.B. vs Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571 . While examining the issue in the context of the power of judicial review as embedded in the constitutional scheme, it was held that no Act of Parliament could exclude or curtail the powers of the constitutional courts in that regard. Reiterating, that the power of judicial review is an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution, it was underlined that the same was essential to, give a pragmatic content to the objectives of the Constitution embodied in Part III and other parts thereof. In elaboration, it was held that Article 21 of the Constitution not only takes within its fold, the enforcement of the rights of the accused but also the rights of the victim. It was predicated that the State has a duty to enforce the human rights of the citizens providing for fair and impartial investigation, against any person accused of commission of any cognizable offence. 65. Referring to Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, it was ruled in Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights case4 that any restriction imposed thereby could not be construed to be one on the powers of the constitutional courts and thus cannot be taken away or curtailed or diluted thereby. While proclaiming the supervening powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct entrustment of the investigation to CBI as in the case involved, this Court sounded a caveat as well that the very plenitude of such power inheres a great caution in its exercise and though no inflexible guidelines can be laid down in that regard, the same has to be invoked sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situation when it becomes necessary to provide credibility and to instil confidence in the investigation 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. 66. 66. The facts in Bharati Tamang vs Union of India, (2013) 15 SCC 578 seeking de novo investigation, present somewhat an identical fact situation. The appellant's husband, President of a political party was brutally murdered in public view and in the presence of police and security personnel, by the supporters of the rival party. The investigation into the sordid incident had been completed. Alleging that the probe initially held by the State Police and thereafter by CID and by CBI were faulty, the prayer for de novo inquisition was made. Imputation of attempts by the prosecution to suppress the truth in spite of the fact that the assailants were identified and named in the FIR and that the incident was in effectuation of a deep-rooted conspiracy and preceded by previous threats were made. CBI in its pleadings, inter alia, cited: (i) prevailing law and order situation in the town; (ii) ascendance of most of the accused persons; (iii) murder of its informants; (iv) fear psychosis in the locality and resultant want of support from the local public as hindrances to its investigation. 67. In Bharati Tamang case on behalf of the appellant, accusation of tardy prosecution of the case, and free and open movement of the key accused persons in the city avoiding arrest were made as well. The plea of the impleaded accused persons that the appellant after the demise of her husband had initiated the writ proceedings for political gain was rejected. Their contention based on Section 319 of the Code that in course of the trial, on availability of sufficient evidence, any person not being an accused could be ordered to be tried, was also negated. The propositions expounded in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh3 qua the duty of the court to ensure fair investigation by remedying the deficiencies and defaults therein so as to bring forth full and material facts to prevent miscarriage of justice were reiterated. It was concluded that when the courts find extraordinary or exceptional circumstances rendering reinvestigation imperative, in such eventualities even de novo investigation can be ordered. It was concluded that when the courts find extraordinary or exceptional circumstances rendering reinvestigation imperative, in such eventualities even de novo investigation can be ordered. While ruling that in case of discernable deficiency in investigation or prosecution, the courts have to deal with the same with iron hand appropriately within the framework of law, it was underlined that in appropriate cases, even if charge-sheet was filed, it was open for the High Court and also this Court to direct investigation of the case to be handed over to CBI or to any other agency or to direct investigation de novo in order to do complete justice, in the facts of the case. 68. Noticing that certain transcripts of some conversations relating to the incident intercepted by CBI were awaiting analysis by the forensic agency as a part of the investigation, this Court in Bharati Tamang case in the ultimate, transferred the case beyond the territorial limits of the district involved and directed that the probe be carried out by CBI to be monitored by its Joint Director as named. It was ordered that CBI would ensure that all required evidence is gathered by leaving no stone unturned, so that all accused involved in the offence are brought for trial to be dealt with in accordance with law. The trial that had meanwhile commenced was kept in abeyance pending conclusion of the further investigation by CBI and the submission of report before the transferred court as ordered. Not only in issuing these directions this Court revisited the imperatives bearing on the duty of the Court to ensure that criminal prosecution is carried out effectively and the perpetrators of the crime are duly punished by the appropriate court of law, it noticed as well some of the factual features of the case, namely: (i) The deceased at his death was the President of a political party. (ii) There was a deep-rooted rivalry between his party and another party. (iii) The deceased had organised a meeting of his party on the date of the incident. (iv) Police personnel were present at the place of the occurrence. Though present, no report thereof was registered immediately thereafter. (v) Wide coverage of the incident by the media. (vi) Availability of the transcripts of the intercepted conversations of some of the accused persons and the office-bearers of the rival political party. 69. (iv) Police personnel were present at the place of the occurrence. Though present, no report thereof was registered immediately thereafter. (v) Wide coverage of the incident by the media. (vi) Availability of the transcripts of the intercepted conversations of some of the accused persons and the office-bearers of the rival political party. 69. This Court in Babubhai vs State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254 , while examining the scope of Section 173(8) of the Code, did recall its observations in Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1 , that it is not only the responsibility of the investigating agency but as well as of the courts to ensure that investigation is fair and does not in any way hamper the freedom of an individual except in accordance with law. It underlined that the equally enforceable canon of criminal law is that high responsibility lies upon the investigating agency, not to conduct an investigation in a tainted and unfair manner and that such a drill should not, prima facie, be indicative of a biased mind and every effort should be made to bring the guilty to law dehors his position and influence in the society as nobody stands above law. It propounded that the word “ordinarily" applied under Section 173(8) of the Code, did attest that if the investigation is unfair and deliberately incomplete and has been done in a manner with an object of helping a party, the court may direct normally for further investigation, and not for reinvestigation. It was, however, added as a sequitur that in exceptional circumstances, the court in order to prevent the miscarriage of criminal justice, and if it is considered necessary, may direct for de novo investigation as well. It was observed that if an investigation has not been conducted fairly, the resultant charge-sheet would be invalid. It was held as well that such investigation would ultimately prove to be a precursor of miscarriage of criminal justice and the court in such a contingency would be left toguess or conjecture, as the whole truth would not be forthcoming to it. It was held that fair investigation is a part of the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and thus, the investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in a tainted or biased manner. It was held that fair investigation is a part of the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and thus, the investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in a tainted or biased manner. It was emphasised that where non-interference of the court would ultimately result in failure of justice, the court must interfere and in the interest of justice choose an independent agency to make a fresh investigation. 70. In Rubabbuddin Sheikh vs State of Gujarat, (2010) 2 SCC 200 as well, though as many as eight action reports had been submitted by the State Police on the incident of reported murder of the brother of the petitioner in a fake encounter and the disappearance of his sister-in-law in which, amongst other, allegedly the anti-terrorist squad of the State Police was involved, a proceeding was initiated on the basis of a letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India seeking a direction for investigation by CBI. In view of the rival contentions advanced as to the permissibility or otherwise of the transfer of the investigation as prayed for, this Court on an in-depth audit of the decisions rendered by it, did negate the plea that subsequent to the submission of a charge-sheet, the court is not empowered in any case whatsoever to hand over the investigation to an independent agency like CBI. It was held, having regard to the parameters outlined by the two sets of authorities on the issue, that such a course, however, would be permissible in an appropriate case where the facts bearing thereon would demonstrate lack of proper investigation and vitiations thereof by factual discrepancies endorsing such a deduction. The aspect that accusations in the contextual facts were directed against the local police personnel in which high police officials of the State had been made accused also did weigh with the determination. The view taken in Gudalure M.J. Cherian vs Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC 397 that though ordinarily, after the investigation is completed by the police and charge-sheet is submitted to the court, the investigation ought not to be reopened by entrusting the same to a specialised agency like CBI, nevertheless in a given situation, to do justice between the parties and to instil confidence in the public mind it may be warranted, was noted with approval. The overriding imperative of permitting transfer of investigation to CBI was thus, acknowledged to be in the advancement of the cause of justice and to instil confidence in the mind of the victims as well as the public. 71. The renderings in Hussainara Khatoon (1) vs State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81 , A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225 , P. Ramachandra Rao vs State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578 , Vakil Prasad Singh vs State of Bihar (2009) 3 SCC 355 , State of W.B. vs Sampat Lal (1985) 1 SCC 317 , Babubhai vs State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254 and Common Cause vs Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667 have been pressed into service on behalf of Respondents 4 and 5 to highlight the demand of speedy trial as a mandate of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While emphasising that speedy trial is the essence of criminal justice and any delay constitutes denial thereof, it has been propounded therein, that any procedure which does not ensure a quick trial cannot be regarded as reasonable, fair or just and would fly in the face of such cherished constitutional promise. While observing that the right to speedy trial encompasses all the stages, namely, investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial, it was however noted in P. Ramachandra Rao that no guidelines for a speedy trial can be intended to be applied as hard rules or a straitjacket formula and that their application would depend on the fact situation of each case, which is difficult to foresee, so much so that no generalisation can be made. It was expounded as well in Sampat Lal that in spite of the procedure laid down in the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, a court, in a given case, if is satisfied that the statutory agency has not functioned in an effective way or that the circumstances are such that it may reasonably be presumed or inferred that it may not be able to conduct the investigation fairly or impartially, the court may reasonably consider to supplement the procedure. 72. 72. While recalling its observation in State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha, (1980) 1 SCC 554 , that on a cognizance of the offence being taken by the court, the police function of investigation comes to an end subject to the provision contained in Section 173(8) of the Code and that the adjudicatory function of the judiciary commences, thus delineating the well-demarcated functions of crime detection and adjudication, this Court in Sampat Lal case did recognise a residuary jurisdiction to give directions to the investigating agency, if satisfied that the requirements of law were not being complied with and that the investigation was not being conducted properly or with due haste and promptitude. 73. It was reiterated in Babubhai that in exceptional circumstances, the Court in order to prevent the miscarriage of criminal justice, may direct investigation de novo, if it is satisfied that non-interference would ultimately result in failure of justice. In such an eventuality endorsement of the investigation to an independent agency to make a fresh probe may be well merited. That not only fair trial but fair investigation is also a part of the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, investigation ought to be fair, transparent and judicious, was re-emphasised. The expression “ordinarily" as used in Section173(8) of the Code was noted again to rule that in exceptional circumstances, however, in order to prevent miscarriage of criminal justice, a court may still direct investigation de novo. 74. The above postulations being strikingly common in all these decisions, do pervade the fabric and the content thereof and thus dilation of individual facts has been avoided. 75. That the extraordinary power of the constitutional courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India qua the issuance of direction to CBI to conduct investigation must be exercised with great caution, was underlined in Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights as adverted to hereinabove. 75. That the extraordinary power of the constitutional courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India qua the issuance of direction to CBI to conduct investigation must be exercised with great caution, was underlined in Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights as adverted to hereinabove. Observing that although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down in this regard, it was highlighted that such an order cannot be passed as a matter of routine or merely because the party has levelled some allegations against the local police and can be invoked in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigation or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and for enforcing the fundamental rights. 76. In Kashmeri Devi vs Delhi Admn., (1988) SCC (Cri) 864, being satisfied, in the prevailing facts and circumstances that effort had been made to protect and shield the guilty officers of the police who allegedly had perpetrated the offence of murder involved, this Court directed the Magistrate concerned before whom the charge-sheet had been submitted, to exercise its power under Section 173(8) of the Code to direct CBI for proper and thorough investigation of the case and to submit an additional charge-sheet in accordance with law. 77. In Gudalure M.J. Cherian vs Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC 397 , this Court in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, lodged in public interest, did after taking note of the fact that charge-sheet had already been submitted, direct CBI to hold further investigation in respect of the offence involved. In recording this conclusion, this Court did take note of the fact that the nuns who had been the victim of the tragedy did not come forward to identify the culprits and that as alleged by the petitioners, the four persons set up by the police as accused were not the real culprits and that the victims were being asked to accept them to be so. The paramount consideration for the direction issued was to secure justice between the parties and to in stil confidence in public mind. The paramount consideration for the direction issued was to secure justice between the parties and to in stil confidence in public mind. The same imperative did impel this Court to issue a similar direction for fresh investigation by CBI in Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Assn.21 Here as well the investigation otherwise had been completed and charge-sheet was submitted. 78. This Court dealing with the proposition that once a charge-sheet is filed, it would then be exclusively in the domain of the competent court to deal with the case on merits in accordance with law and that the monitoring of the investigation would cease in all respects, held, in particular, in K.V. Rajendran vs Supt. Of Police, (2013) 12 SCC 480 , in reiteration of the enunciations aforestated, that though it is ordinarily so, the power of transferring investigation in rare and exceptional cases for the purpose of doing justice between the parties and to instil confidence in the public mind, can be made invoking its constitutional power available, to ensure a fair, honest and complete investigation. 79. The precedential ordainment against absolute prohibition for assignment of investigation to any impartial agency like CBI, submission of the charge-sheet by the normal investigating agency in law notwithstanding, albeit in an exceptional fact situation warranting such initiative, in order to secure a fair, honest and complete investigation and to consolidate the confidence of the victim(s) and the public in general in the justice administering mechanism, is thus unquestionably absolute and hallowed by time. Such a measure, however, can by no means be a matter of course or routine but has to be essentially adopted in order to live up to and effectuate the salutary objective of guaranteeing an independent and upright mechanism of justice dispensation without fear or favour, by treating all alike. 80. In the decisions cited on behalf of CBI as well, this Court in K. Saravanan Karuppasamyvs State of T.N., (2014) 10 SCC 406 and Sudipta Lenka vs State of Odisha, (2014) 11 SCC 527 ,recounted the above propositions underpinning 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. 81. 81. The judicially propounded propositions on the aspects of essentiality and justifiability for assignment of further investigation or reinvestigation to an independent investigating agency like CBI, whether or not the probe into a criminal offence by the local/State Police is pending or completed, irrespective of as well, the pendency of the resultant trial have concretised over the years, applicability whereof, however, is contingent on the factual setting involved and the desideratum for vigilant, sensitised and evenhanded justice to the parties. 82. The exhaustive references of the citations seemingly repetitive though, assuredly attest the conceptual consisting in the expositions and enunciations on the issue highlighting the cause of justice as the ultimate determinant for the course to be adopted. 83. A “speedy trial", albeit the essence of the fundamental right to life entrenched in Article 21 of the Constitution of India has a companion in concept in “fair trial", both being inalienable constituents of an adjudicative process, to culminate in a judicial decision by a court of law as the final arbiter. There is indeed a qualitative difference between right to speedy trial and fair trial so much so that denial of the former by itself would not be prejudicial to the accused, when pitted against the imperative of fair trial. As fundamentally, justice not only has to be done but also must appear to have been done, the residuary jurisdiction of a court to direct further investigation or reinvestigation by any impartial agency, probe by the State Police notwithstanding, has to be essentially invoked if the statutory agency already in charge of the investigation appears to have been ineffective or is presumed or inferred to be not being able to discharge its functions fairly, meaningfully and fructuously. As the cause of justice has to reign supreme, a court of law cannot reduce itself to be a resigned and a helpless spectator and with the foreseen consequences apparently unjust, in the face of a faulty investigation, meekly complete the formalities to record a foregone conclusion. Justice then would become a casualty. Though a court's satisfaction of want of proper, fair, impartial and effective investigation eroding its credence and reliability is the precondition for a direction for further investigation or reinvestigation, submission of the charge-sheet ipso facto or the pendency of the trial can by no means be a prohibitive impediment. Justice then would become a casualty. Though a court's satisfaction of want of proper, fair, impartial and effective investigation eroding its credence and reliability is the precondition for a direction for further investigation or reinvestigation, submission of the charge-sheet ipso facto or the 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. 84. As every social order is governed by the rule of law, the justice dispensing system cannot afford any compromise in the discharge of its sanctified role of administering justice on the basis of the real facts and in accordance with law. This is indispensable, in order to retain and stabilise the faith and confidence of the public in general in the justice delivery institutions as envisioned by the Constitution. 85. As succinctly summarised by this Court in Committee for Protection of Democratic Right4, the extraordinary power of the constitutional courts in directing CBI to conduct investigation in a case must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations, when it is necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigation or where the incident may have national or international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary fordoing 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 interdependent on each other. 86. 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, 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. 87. 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 plenitude and content thereof can neither be enervated nor moderated by any legislation. 88. The expression “fair and proper investigation" in criminal jurisprudence was held by this Court in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762 to encompass two imperatives; firstly, the investigation must be unbiased, honest, just and in accordance with law; and secondly, the entire emphasis has to be to bring out the truth of the case before the court of competent jurisdiction. 89. Prior thereto, in the same vein, it was ruled in Samaj Parivartan Samudaya v. State of Karnataka (2012) 7 SCC 407 that the basic purpose of an investigation is to bring out the truth by conducting fair and proper investigation in accordance with law and to ensure that the guilty are punished. 89. Prior thereto, in the same vein, it was ruled in Samaj Parivartan Samudaya v. State of Karnataka (2012) 7 SCC 407 that the basic purpose of an investigation is to bring out the truth by conducting fair and proper investigation in accordance with law and to ensure that the guilty are punished. It held further that the jurisdiction of a court to ensure fair and proper investigation in an adversarial system of criminal administration is of a higher degree than in an inquisitorial system and it has to take precaution that interested or influential persons are not able to misdirect or hijack the investigation, so as to throttle a fair investigation resulting in the offenders, escaping the punitive course of law. Any lapse, it was proclaimed, would result in error of jurisdiction. 90. That the victim cannot be afforded to be treated as an alien or total stranger to the criminal trial was reiterated by this Court in Rattiram v. State of M.P. (2012) 4 SCC 516 It was postulated that the criminal jurisprudence with the passage of time has laid emphasis on victimology, which fundamentally is the perception of a trial from the viewpoint of criminal as well as the victim when judged in the social context. 91. This Court in NHRC v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 6 SCC 767 did proclaim unambiguously that discovery, investigation and establishment of truth are the main purposes of the courts of justice and indeed are raison d'étre for their existence. 92. That the pre-eminence of truth is the guiding star in a judicial process forming the foundation of justice, had been aptly propounded by this Court in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira, (2012) 5 SCC 370 . It was ruled that the entire judicial system had been created only to discern and find out the real truth and that the Judges at all levels have to seriously engage themselves in the journey of discovering the same. Emphasising that the quest for truth is the mandate of law and indeed the bounden duty of the courts, it was observed that the justice system will acquire credibility only when the people will be convinced that justice is based on the foundation of the truth. Emphasising that the quest for truth is the mandate of law and indeed the bounden duty of the courts, it was observed that the justice system will acquire credibility only when the people will be convinced that justice is based on the foundation of the truth. While referring with approval, the revealing observation made in Ritesh Tewari v. State of U.P. ( 2010 10 SCC 677 that every trial is voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest, the following passage of Lord Denning scripted in Jones v. National Coal Board40 was extracted in affirmation: (Maria Margarida case, SCC p. 384, para 39) “39. … … It's all very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage round her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth.' (Jones case (1957) 2 ZB 55, QB p. 64)" 93. A strain of poignance and disquiet over the insensitive approach of the court concerned in the textual facts in the context of fair trial in the following observations of this Court in VinodKumar v. State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220 sounds an awakening caveat: (SCC p. 227, para 3) “3. The narration of the sad chronology shocks the judicial conscience and gravitates the mind to pose a question: Is it justified for any conscientious trial Judge to ignore the statutory command, not recognise ‘the felt necessities of time' and remain impervious to the cry of the collective asking for justice or give an indecent and uncalled for burial to the conception of trial, totally ostracising the concept that a civilised and orderly society thrives on the rule of law which includes ‘fair trial' for the accused as well as the prosecution?" 94. The observations though made in the backdrop of repeated adjournments granted by the trial court, chiefly for cross-examination of a witness resulting in the delay of the proceedings, the concern expressed is of overarching relevance demanding sentient attention and remedial response. The poser indeed stems from the indispensable interface of the orderly existence of the society founded on the rule of law and “fairtrial" for the accused as well as the prosecution. The poser indeed stems from the indispensable interface of the orderly existence of the society founded on the rule of law and “fairtrial" for the accused as well as the prosecution. That the duty of the court while conducting a trial is to be guarded by the mandate of law, conceptual fairness and above all its sacrosanct role to arrive at the truth on the basis of material brought on record, was reiterated. 95. Adverting to the role of the police to be one for protection of life, liberty and property of citizens, with investigation of offences being one of its foremost duties, it was underscored in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India42 that the aim of investigation is ultimately to search for truth and to bring the offender to book. The observations of Lord Denning in his rendering in The Due Process of Law, First Indian Reprint, 1993, p. 102 were alluded to as under: (SCC p. 553, para 25) “25. … ‘In safeguarding our freedoms, the police play a vital role. Society for its defence needs a well-led, well-trained and well disciplined force of police whom it can trust: and enough of them to be able to prevent crime before it happens, or if it does happen, to detect it and bring the accused to justice. The police, of course, must act properly. They must obey the rules of right conduct. They must not extort confessions by threats or promises. They must not search a man's house without authority. They must not use more force than the occasion warrants.'" 25. It is true that despite wide powers conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Court must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these Constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said Article 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 passed 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, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Committee of Protection, 2010 (3) SCC 571 . 26. It is settled law that not only fair trial, but fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. When there is unfair, biased and unscientific investigation in a hurried manner without waiting for the FSL report, there cannot be any presumption of conviction of the sixth respondent. Thus, in view of this court, the Investigating Officer has failed to conduct fair, unbiased and scientific investigation in the matter as the investigation culminated into filing of charge sheet under Section 306 of IPC only against the sixth respondent. It appears to this court that the I.O. submitted the charge sheet under the influence of the sixth respondent. 27. Hon'ble Apex Court in Dharam Pal vs State of Haryana and others, (2016) 4 SCC 160 , has held that the constitutional courts can direct for further investigation or investigation by some other investigating agency. The purpose is, there has to be a fair investigation and a fair trial. The fair trial may be quite difficult unless there is a fair investigation. Para 24 of the said judgment is excerpted here-in-below for convenience: “24. Be it noted here that the constitutional courts can direct for further investigation or investigation by some other investigating agency. The purpose is, there has to be a fair investigation and a fair trial. The fair trial may be quite difficult unless there is a fair investigation. We are absolutely conscious that direction for further investigation by another agency has to be very sparingly issued but the facts depicted in this case compel us to exercise the said power. We are disposed to think that purpose of justice commands that the cause of the victim, the husband of the deceased, deserves to be answered so that miscarriage of justice is avoided. Therefore, in this case the stage of the case cannot be the governing factor. 28. We are disposed to think that purpose of justice commands that the cause of the victim, the husband of the deceased, deserves to be answered so that miscarriage of justice is avoided. Therefore, in this case the stage of the case cannot be the governing factor. 28. In a case of unnatural death, fair and impartial investigation, that too in a scientific manner, should be done to find out the truth, whereas no such endeavor has been made by the Investigation Officer in the instant case to disinter the truth and to book the culprits. I am of the firm opinion that both the Civil Police and CBCID have failed to investigate the matter in a just and proper manner, in accordance with law. 29. Hon'ble Apex Court in Pooja Pal vs Union of India and others, (2016) 3 SCC 135 , has held regarding the avowed purpose of a criminal investigation and its efficacious prospects with the advent of scientific and technical advancements. Para 96 of said judgment as extracted hereunder: “The avowed purpose of a criminal investigation and its efficacious prospects with the advent of scientific and technical advancements have been candidly synopsized in the prefatory chapter dealing with the history of criminal investigation in the treatiseon Criminal Investigation – Basic Perspectives by Paul B. Weston and Renneth M. Wells: “Criminal investigation is a lawful search for people and things useful in reconstructing the circumstances of an illegal act or omission and the mental state accompanying it. It is probing from the known to the unknown, backward in time, and its goal is to determine truth as far as it can be discovered in any post-factum inquiry. Successful investigations are based on fidelity, accuracy, and sincerity in lawfully searching for the true facts of an event under investigation and on an equal faithfulness, exactness, and probity in reporting the results of an investigation. Modern investigators are persons who stick to the truth and are absolutely clear about the time and place of an event and the measurable aspects of evidence. They work throughout their investigation fully recognizing that even a minor contradiction or error may destroy confidence in their investigation. The joining of science with traditional criminal investigation techniques offers new horizons of efficiency in criminal investigation. They work throughout their investigation fully recognizing that even a minor contradiction or error may destroy confidence in their investigation. The joining of science with traditional criminal investigation techniques offers new horizons of efficiency in criminal investigation. New perspectives in investigation bypass reliance upon informers and custodial interrogation and concentrate upon a skilled scanning of the crime scene for physical evidence and a search for as many witnesses as possible. Mute evidence tells its own story in court, either by its own demonstrativeness or through the testimony of an expert witness involved in its scientific testing. Such evidence may serve in lieu of, or as corroboration of, testimonial evidence of witnesses found and interviewed by police in an extension of their responsibility to seek out the truth of all the circumstances of crime happening. An increasing certainty in solving crimes is possible and will contribute to the major deterrent of crime – the certainty that a criminal will be discovered, arrested and convicted." 30. Admittedly, Ms. Aanchal died an unnatural death. It was revealed during investigation that the sixth respondent had extra marital relations with a girl (name is not being disclosed) and the CCTV footage of the housing society depict that after the death of Ms. Aanchal, the sixth respondent jumped the back wall and came along with his sister and did photography of the scene of occurrence by opening the knot of chunni from the neck of the deceased. It is evidently apparent on the face of record that the police did not conduct the investigation in fair, impartial and scientific manner, rather it is clearly evident from the record that the Investigating Officer has extended undue favour to the accused persons. Unnatural death of a married woman inside her matrimonial home is a serious matter. The Parliament in its wisdom has enacted the law regarding dowry death so that the culprit may be brought to justice. But merely by enacting such a stringent law, its true purpose would not be served, if the investigation conducted by an investigating agency is not carried out in fair, unbiased and scientific manner. Same is the situation here. The Parliament in its wisdom has enacted the law regarding dowry death so that the culprit may be brought to justice. But merely by enacting such a stringent law, its true purpose would not be served, if the investigation conducted by an investigating agency is not carried out in fair, unbiased and scientific manner. Same is the situation here. It is true that investigation should not to transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a routine manner, but when this Court came to the conclusion that a fair investigation has not been done by the civil police and despite direction to the civil police the investigation culminated into filing of charge sheet that too in respect of a lesser offence, fair investigation is not expected. In such a situation, the Courts cannot tie its hands not to transfer the investigation of the case to an impartial investigating agency. The CBI is considered by the constitutional courts as an investigating agency having high integrity and expertise in the use of scientific and technical advancements in criminal investigation. 31. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the investigation of the present matter be transferred to the CBI with the following directions: i) The investigation of case crime no. 23 of 2017, under Section 302 IPC, registered at P.S. Rajpur, District Dehradun shall be transferred to CBI, despite the fact that charge sheet under Section 306 of IPC has been submitted by the civil police along with entire material available with the civil police and CBI shall investigate the matter with all fairness in a scientific manner, and if it is found that the I.O., who has concluded the investigation of the case earlier, has committed dereliction of her duties, necessary steps be taken by recommending the matter to the State Government for initiating appropriate disciplinary action against the erring officer. ii) The CBI after completing the investigation shall submit the report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. iii) Till the investigation is concluded by the CBI, further proceedings of the criminal case no. 2873 of 2017 shall remain stayed. 32. With the directions as above, the writ petition stands disposed of. 33. After dictation of judgment, Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2873 of 2017 shall remain stayed. 32. With the directions as above, the writ petition stands disposed of. 33. After dictation of judgment, Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 would submit that vide order dated 26.07.2018, one weeks' time was granted to respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 to file counter affidavit, but he could not file the counter affidavit within the stipulated period. Thereafter, the writ petition was listed on 06.08.2018. On 06.08.2018, a mentioned was made by proxy counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Aditya Singh that Mr. Singh is busy in another court, the case be adjourned. On the request of learned proxy counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 the matter was posted for hearing on 7th August 2018. Arguments were commenced but no request was made on behalf of respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 that they may be granted further time to file the counter affidavit. Thus, it would not be appropriate for this Court to grant time to respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 to file their counter affidavit after dictation of judgment. The prayer, as made, is denied.