JUDGMENT : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR The present writ petition was initially filed by Tekni Devi W/o Sri Teklal Pandit (hereinafter referred as the original petitioner) for issuance of direction upon the respondents, particularly, the Superintendent of Police, Giridih (the respondent No.2) to take legal action against the named accused persons of Bagodar (Sariya) P.S. Case No. 88 of 2010 dated 07.05.2010 instituted for the offence under Sections 366(A)/34 of IPC as the accused persons were roaming freely in the locality and were even seen with the local police. Further prayer was made for taking necessary action to search the daughter of the original petitioner, who was allegedly kidnapped by the accused persons. 2. Subsequently, after the death of the original petitioner, her brother, namely, Bodhi Pandit S/o Hiraman Pandit (hereinafter referred to as the present petitioner) has been substituted as the petitioner. 3. In the present case, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate, was appointed as Amicus Curiae vide order dated 05.08.2022 to assist this Court. 4. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae, and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 5. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted written notes of argument in the present case highlighting the following key points with respect to different counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents and the qualitative assessments of the same: (i) The original petitioner, namely, Tekni Devi had lodged an FIR being Bagodar (Saria) P.S. Case No. 88 of 2010 on 07-05-2010 alleging that certain people belonging to her in-laws’ family had kidnapped her daughter, namely, Priti Kumari (hereinafter referred to as the victim girl) aged about 16 years, who was missing since 25.04.2010 and when the efforts to trace the victim girl did not make any headway, the original petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition for promptly conducting the investigation. (ii) The respondent No.3 filed a counter affidavit dated 10-02-2012 stating that after institution of the case, the investigation was taken up and the statements of various witnesses were recorded by the investigating officer. The statement of one Jageshwar Pandit, who happens to be the father-in-law of the informant, was recorded at Para 8 of the case diary from which it appeared that there was dispute regarding share in landed property of the witnesses resulting in institution of the case before the competent Court. The statement of one Jageshwar Pandit, who happens to be the father-in-law of the informant, was recorded at Para 8 of the case diary from which it appeared that there was dispute regarding share in landed property of the witnesses resulting in institution of the case before the competent Court. Para 9 of the case diary was the statement of one Baijnath Ram, who had also stated about the dispute between the informant and accused persons with respect to share in the landed property. The said witness also stated that the victim girl was once caught having illicit relationship with her ‘Jija’. It was also stated that one of the accused persons, namely, Tulsi Pandit was asked by the victim girl to drop her at Chichaki Railway Station. Thereafter, he left her at the station and returned home. The other witnesses also did not support the case of the prosecution. In course of investigation, the statement of the informant’s husband, namely, Teklal Pandit @ Tiko Pandit was recorded at Para 46 of the case diary in which it was stated by him that the informant had instituted a false case against his family members. He had also stated that perhaps the informant under conspiracy had sold his daughter somewhere. The case was supervised by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bogodar-Sariya, Giridih, who mentioned in the supervision note that the case instituted under Section 366-A of IPC was found to be true, however, the allegation made against the accused persons was found to be false. (iii) The qualitative assessment of the counter affidavit dated 10-02-2012 filed by the respondent No.3 would denote following pitfalls in the investigation of the case:- “(A.) Investigation commenced after lodging of the FIR on 07.05.2010, however, incident of missing the victim girl happened on 25.04.2010. I. Rightful Action: Swift registration of the F.I.R. and acknowledgment of the matter by the Court. II. Oversight: Apparent lack of immediate and thorough investigative actions to locate the missing girl. (B.) Interim Period of Investigation (08-05-2010 to 17-03-2011): I. Rightful Action: None evidence. II. Oversight: (i) Prolonged inaction, failing to file a chargesheet or provide substantial progress updates. I. Rightful Action: Swift registration of the F.I.R. and acknowledgment of the matter by the Court. II. Oversight: Apparent lack of immediate and thorough investigative actions to locate the missing girl. (B.) Interim Period of Investigation (08-05-2010 to 17-03-2011): I. Rightful Action: None evidence. II. Oversight: (i) Prolonged inaction, failing to file a chargesheet or provide substantial progress updates. (ii) Almost after passing of one-year period from registration of the F.I.R, the noticeable lack of an investigative follow-through and the absence of chargesheet prompted the original petitioner (Tekni Devi) to seek a progress report from the police by preferring an application dated 17-03-2011 before the Ld. C.J.M, Giridih. (C.) Ongoing Investigation (till 10-02-2012): I. Rightful Action: Acknowledgment of ongoing investigation concerning recovery of the victim girl. II. Oversight: (i) Persistent lack of transparency and communication with the Petitioner regarding investigative progress. (ii) Limited disclosure on investigative measures undertaken for victim recovery and lack of compelling evidence resulting into decisively refutal of the allegations. (iii) The significant delay in investigation followed by absence of chargesheet and lack of proactive measures to provide the requested progress report, underscore a lapse in investigation with due diligence. Moreover, the ongoing nature of the investigation concerning the missing girl's recovery, as noted in Para 13 of the said counter affidavit, hints at a potential lack of expediency and thoroughness in investigative efforts.” (iv) In response to the counter affidavit dated 10.02.2012, the original petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit on 24-2-2012 stating that she had inimical terms with her father-in-law, namely, Sri Jageshwar Pandit and her husband, namely, Sri Teklal Pandit as she along with her daughter had been driven out of her matrimonial house by them in the year 2000 and since then the original petitioner was living separately with her daughter from where she was kidnapped by the accused persons, who were the family members of her father-in-law and husband. Due to inimical terms with the original petitioner or on duress as well as threat from the accused persons and police, the father-in-law and the husband of the informant had stated in support of the accused persons. However, it was wrongly stated that there was land dispute between the original petitioner and the accused persons. Due to inimical terms with the original petitioner or on duress as well as threat from the accused persons and police, the father-in-law and the husband of the informant had stated in support of the accused persons. However, it was wrongly stated that there was land dispute between the original petitioner and the accused persons. The statement of the accused, namely, Tulsi Pandit was not verified by the police by arresting and interrogating, the reasons best known to the concerned investigating officer of the case. The police were trying to protect the accused persons and due to the said reason, the statements of the material witnesses were not recorded. Since there were inimical terms between the original petitioner and her husband, who had driven her out along with her daughter from the matrimonial house and a matrimonial case was pending against him, he would have stated that the present case was falsely instituted. The investigation was not done effectively and the accused persons were not arrested by the police despite being named in the FIR. (v) The supplementary counter affidavits were filed on 03-09-2012 & 24.11.2012 stating that two persons, namely, Kailash Pandit and Binod Pandit were apprehended by the officials of specially constituted team Nos. 1 & 2 and both of them disclosed that the original petitioner of the present case, namely, Tekni Devi had informed them that the police were looking out for them and they were asked to switch off their mobile phone and move to some other place. The said disclosure was recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih under the provision of Section 164 Cr.P.C. The last report dated 30.08.2012 sent by the Superintendent of Police, Giridih indicates that on secret information, the officials of team No.2 had gone to Mumbai in search of the missing girl, but another girl, namely, Mamta Kumari, D/o Horil Mandal, R/o Bhagat Singh Chowk, Sariya, District-Giridih was found there. (vi) The qualitative assessment of the counter affidavits filed on 03-09-2012 & 24.11.2012 would denote following concerns about the investigation: “(A.) Efficacy of Investigation: Despite the passage of considerable time and the deployment of resources, the persistent lack of break-through as well as inability to unearth substantial evidence or to locate the missing individual raises concerns regarding the meticulousness and the strategic foresight embedded within the investigative agencies. (B.) Inter-Agency Communication: There is apparent lapse in responsive correspondence from other police establishments. This lacuna not only potentially stifles the broadening of the investigative horizon, but might also reflect a deficiency in developing a cohesive law enforcement network crucial for such sensitive and expansive inquiries. (C.) Witness Examination and Verification: The reliability and thorough examination of witnesses statements are questionable. The affidavit leans on the statements of certain witnesses, but there isn't substantial corroboration or an evident attempt to delve deeper into inconsistencies or explore potential leads derived from these testimonies. (D.) Engagement with Complainant: The affidavit does not reflect a conducive engagement with the petitioner, which is vital for garnering trust and ensuring a cooperative environment. (E.) Legal and Forensic Resources: The affidavit does not indicate the utilization of available legal and forensic resources, which could have significantly propelled the investigation forward. Maximum use of such resources is essential for navigating complex legal and investigative terrains. (F.) Training and Expertise: The investigative challenges outlined in the affidavit might also reflect a need for enhanced training and expertise in handling sensitive and complex cases, especially those concerning the welfare of minors.” (vii) The respondent No.3 filed another supplementary counter affidavit dated 08-04-2016 stating that the incumbent Investigating Officer assumed the charge of the case on 28-02-2016 and after investigating the case promptly, expressed his intention to submit a charge sheet/final form in the said case. (viii) The erstwhile Investigating Officer of the case, namely, Raj Kumar Singh also filed show cause reply dated 26-04-2016 stating that he took the charge of investigation on 23.11.2014 and remained in charge till 05.02.2016, however, the delay caused in conducting the investigation was due to the fact that he was simultaneously consulting his superior officers to ascertain his investigative competence with respect to the probe in the aforementioned F.I.R registered under Section 366(A) of the IPC, alongwith other professional obligations to investigate various criminal cases, which ostensibly resulted in protraction of the investigation process. (ix) The qualitative assessment of the counter affidavit dated 08-04-2016 and show cause reply dated 26-04-2016 would elucidate the ensuing apprehensions concerning the investigative pursuits, which were as follows: “(A.) Protracted Investigation: The elongated span of the investigation, as acknowledged by ex-IO Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, underscores a significant oversight. (ix) The qualitative assessment of the counter affidavit dated 08-04-2016 and show cause reply dated 26-04-2016 would elucidate the ensuing apprehensions concerning the investigative pursuits, which were as follows: “(A.) Protracted Investigation: The elongated span of the investigation, as acknowledged by ex-IO Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, underscores a significant oversight. Such protraction potentially jeopardizes the integrity of the investigative process and may result in loss of crucial evidence, thereby undermining the quest for justice. (B.) Inadequate Supervision: The apparent lack of effective supervision and guidance to the ex-I.O by the supervising authority and the delays encountered during the investigation reflects an oversight which could have been potentially avoided by providing such guidance. (C.) Failure to submit timely Chargesheet: The delay caused in submission of the charge sheet/final form, as indicated in the counter affidavit of respondent No.3, denotes an oversight in fulfilling a pivotal procedural requisite, which could adversely impact the judicial adjudication of the matter.” (x) The Director General of Police, Jharkhand filed a counter affidavit on 12.06.2017 stating that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 26-04-2016, a departmental proceeding being Giridih District Departmental Proceeding No. 45 of 2016 was initiated against the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police-Mr. Raj Kumar Singh for dereliction of duty committed in investigating Bogodar (Sariya) P.S. Case No. 88/2010. Subsequently, he was adjudged culpable and penalized with forfeiture of two annual increments tantamounting to three black marks. He was also debarred from conducting investigation of special reported (SR) cases and the Officer-in-Charge, Sariya Police Station was directed to hand him over investigation of only the non-special reported (non SR) cases as well as the Officer-in-Charge of the rank of the Sub-Inspector of Police was made Investigating Officer of the said case. It was also stated that efforts were made to track the victim girl and the statements of accused persons were recorded as also two teams of police officers were constituted. It was also stated that efforts were made to track the victim girl and the statements of accused persons were recorded as also two teams of police officers were constituted. One team was sent to Hanskopal, Puri (Odisha) and the another team was sent to Goregaon, Mumbai (Maharashtra) and due to pressure of the police officials, one Binod Pandit from Goregaon and Kailash Pandit from Puri came to Giridih and made their statements in the concerned Court under Section 164 Cr.P.C with respect to recovery of the said girl where both of them alleged that the original petitioner Tekni Devi had told them to change their Mobile SIM and to abscond from the places where they were residing. Moreover, on suspicion, the mobile number which was being used by the original petitioner Tekni Devi, was put on surveillance, but in spite of all the efforts, the victim girl was not traced out. For recovery of the victim girl, publication was made in the daily newspaper and the I.O of the case requested the learned C.J.M, Giridih for polygraphy test of the accused persons, but the C.J.M vide order dated 02.01.2017, refused to pass an order for conducting the polygraphy test. It was further stated that the son of the informant, namely, Pawan Kumar Pandit lodged an FIR being Saria P.S Case No. 134 of 2016 under Sections 364/120B/34 of IPC stating that in the evening of 03-09-2016, several individuals, namely, Sunil Pandit, Dhiraj Pandit, Salamat Mian, Mitthu Mahto, Zainul Ansari, Majeed Ansari and Bablu Mian deceitfully enticed the informant under the pretence of discussion about paternal property shares and presumably murdered her by abducting. He further alleged that his sister, Priti Kumari, was abducted by his uncle Horil Pandit @ Sunil Pandit. During investigation, all the named accused persons were apprehended who made their confessional statements admitting that they had murdered Mrs. Tekni Devi on 03-09-2016 around 8:30 P.M and in order to obfuscate the evidence, the malefactors (accused persons) discarded her dead body near Chalania forest situated under Bishnugarh P.S, feigning a road mishap. Consequently, a case was registered under Bishnugarh P.S. Case No. 122 of 2016 dated 04.09.2016 under Section 279/304-A of IPC against an unidentified vehicle. Mr. Pawan Kumar Pandit identified the deceased through a photograph as Ms. Tekni Devi. Consequently, a case was registered under Bishnugarh P.S. Case No. 122 of 2016 dated 04.09.2016 under Section 279/304-A of IPC against an unidentified vehicle. Mr. Pawan Kumar Pandit identified the deceased through a photograph as Ms. Tekni Devi. (xi) On 20-04-2017, the Director General of Police, Jharkhand reviewed Sariya P.S. Case No. 88 of 2010 and issued following directions:- “(a) On the Point of arresting of the name accused: To take immediate steps to arrest rest of the two accused namely Chhakni Devi & Sushila Devi as well as in case they evade from arresting, further process be taken without delay. (b) On the Point of Recovery of Priti Kumari: i. To constitute a SIT for recovery of the Kidnapped girl Priti Kumari. ii. To collect information about Priti Kumari from nearby villages. iii. To enquire from the school friends of Priti Kumari. iv. To contact with villagers who are working outside the State for collecting information about the said kidnapped girl. v. To make available the photograph of the kidnapped girl with the teams involved in the Operation Muskan. vi. To send hue & cry notice to all the states. vii. To collect information from child helpline. viii. To publish the news of victim girl in the print media/TV and through pamphlets. ix. To collect the call details of the used mobile numbers either earlier or present concerning the said case by the help of Technical Cell. (c) On the Point of completion of the investigation of the case: To conclude the investigation without delay.” (xii) The qualitative assessment of the counter affidavits filed on 12.06.2017 unveils the following dissatisfaction pertaining to the investigative procedure, which are as follows: “(A.) The rightful actions as per the affidavits are as follows: i. The departmental proceeding initiated against the Ex-Investigating Officer Mr. Raj Kumar Singh depicts adherence to disciplinary protocols. ii. The sustained efforts in attempting to locate the missing girl, inclusive of mobile surveillance and polygraph test considerations, demonstrate a procedural approach. iii. The comprehensive review by the DGP and subsequent directives reflect a structured attempt to advance the investigation. Raj Kumar Singh depicts adherence to disciplinary protocols. ii. The sustained efforts in attempting to locate the missing girl, inclusive of mobile surveillance and polygraph test considerations, demonstrate a procedural approach. iii. The comprehensive review by the DGP and subsequent directives reflect a structured attempt to advance the investigation. (B.) The Oversights committed in the Investigation are as follows: i. Lack of Prompt Polygraph Examination: The delay in deciding to request for a polygraph examination on the accused persons and subsequent denial by judicial authorities reflect a lack of showing urgency or improper preparation on the part of investigation and supervising officials in presenting the necessity of such examination. ii. Delayed Identification: The delayed identification and apprehension of the accused individuals concerning Mrs. Tekni Devi's murder case reveal a potential lapse in the initial stages of investigation of the said case. iii. Late Directives: The issuance of directives after an extensive period post the registration of the FIR indicates a protracted investigative process, which may have affected the efficacy and the expeditious resolution of the case. iv. Inadequate Surveillance Measures: The surveillance measures on the mobile phone of the informant and other potential suspects or witnesses seem to have been insufficient or initiated late, which might have delayed the gathering of crucial information related to the case. v. Insufficient Public Outreach: Although there was publication of the missing girl's description in a national daily, further outreach through various other mediums such as local newspapers, community alerts, and social media platforms could have been utilized to gather more information from the public. vi. Lack of Utilization of Technical Resources: Modern technical resources and forensic technologies appear to have not been fully utilized at the early stages of the investigation, which could have accelerated the process of collecting evidence and identifying the culprits. vii. Inadequate Protection for Informants and Witnesses: The murder of the informant Mrs. Tekni Devi, indicates a severe lapse in providing necessary protection to key individuals involved in the case who might be at risk, thereby also possibly losing crucial leads in the investigation.” (xiii) Another supplementary counter affidavit was filed on 10-07-2017 by the respondent No.3 stating that during the investigation process, the accused, namely, Horil Pandit @ Sunil Pandit, Raju Pandit, Shushila Devi and Tulsi Pandit were apprehended and subsequently remanded to judicial custody by the respondents. Accused, Chhakni Devi voluntarily surrendered and was accorded bail on 03-07-2017. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bagodar-Sariya, Giridih supervised the case, who acknowledged the legitimacy of the case under Section 366 (A) of IPC, but disbelieved the allegations made against the named accused persons. However, the Superintendent of Police, Giridih disagreed with the findings of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bagodar-Sariya, Giridih and directed to undertake all requisite measures for recovery of the victim-Priti Kumari. Thereafter, the information of the victim girl along with her photograph was circulated through local newspapers including "Prabhat Khabar" on various dates. The mobile numbers of Pawan Kumar, the brother of the victim and Bodhi Pandit, the maternal uncle of the victim, were kept under surveillance. (xiv) The qualitative assessment of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 10-07-2017 would manifest ensuing trepidations concerning the investigative activities, which are as follows: “(A.) Discrepancy in Supervisory Opinions: The difference between the findings of the SDPO and the Superintendent of Police indicates a potential lack of a coherent investigative strategy, which could have hindered the progress of the case. (B.) Delay in Recovery Measures: The time taken to initiate comprehensive measures for the recovery of the victim suggests a possible lack of urgency, which is crucial in child abduction cases. (C.) Coordination with Higher Authorities: The variance in directives from supervisory authorities suggests a possible lack of streamlined communication or coordination, which could adversely affect the efficacy of the investigative process. (D.) Public Engagement: A more aggressive public engagement strategy, encompassing a broader spectrum of media outlets and community outreach, could have facilitated a faster gathering of critical information concerning the victim's whereabouts. (E.) Technology Utilization: The lack of utilization of modern technological tools and forensic methodologies may indicate a missed opportunity to expedite the investigative process and gather crucial evidence.’’ (xv) A counter affidavit has been filed by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bagodar-Sariya, Giridih, dated 13-09-2017 wherein it has been stated that one team of police officers was sent separately to Hanskopal-Puri-Orissa and Udupi-Karnataka and another team was sent to Maharashtra, Goregaon, Mumbai to make enquiry from the named accused persons, who were the close relatives of the informant and the mobile number and IMEI No. of the original petitioner were also put in listening and surveillance mode for one month, but no satisfactory information could surface. It has further been stated that the original petitioner has been murdered by Horil Pandit with the help of his criminal friends, namely, Dhiraj Pandit, Salamat Mian, Mithu Mahto, Jainul Ansari, Majid Ansari and Ballu Mian. It has also been stated that under the guise of discussing her share in ancestral property, they lured Tekni Devi and subsequently murdered her. Thereafter, they discarded her body near Chalaniya forest. In this connection, Sariya P.S. Case No. 134/16 was instituted against the accused persons, who were incarcerated, but are currently on bail. Besides other factors, a dispute with respect to distribution of a sum of Rs.32,00,000/- acquired from the sale of the property of Tekni Devi's father-in-law also contributed to the kidnapping of Priti Kumari and subsequent lodging of Bagodar P.S. Case No. 88 of 2010 by Tekni Devi concerning her daughter's abduction. The threats regarding the case eventually culminated in the murder of Tekni Devi. Pursuant to grant of bail in Sariya P.S. Case No. 134 of 2016, Horil Pandit @ Sushil Pandit, threatened the deceased's brother and son, Pawan Kumar Pandit, to retract from the case, otherwise to face lethal consequences. During the investigation of Sariya P.S. Case No. 134 of 2016, it was discovered that Tekni Devi had been threatened by the accused persons prior to her murder. The I.O. of the case has been directed to employ all coercive measures to apprehend the accused in connection with Bagodar P.S. Case No. 88 of 2010. A comprehensive review of Sariya P.S. Case No. 88 of 2010 was done and the investigation's progress was monitored on 24-07-2017 in the office of the Director General of Police, Jharkhand and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand which was attended by various senior police officials wherein it was decided to arrest the remaining accused persons by constituting a special investigation team and to recover Priti Kumari by obtaining pertinent information from various sources and widespread dissemination of the victim's details through multiple channels including 'Operation Muskan' started by the CID, Jharkhand Police, print media and television. (xvi) The qualitative assessment of the counter affidavit dated 13-09-2017 would indicate following concerns with the investigation:- “(A.) Evidence Collection Failures: Failure to collect the best evidence at the time of the incident or soon thereafter could have compromised the integrity and efficacy of the investigation. (xvi) The qualitative assessment of the counter affidavit dated 13-09-2017 would indicate following concerns with the investigation:- “(A.) Evidence Collection Failures: Failure to collect the best evidence at the time of the incident or soon thereafter could have compromised the integrity and efficacy of the investigation. (B.) Lackadaisical Investigation: The belated discovery of critical links between property dispute, the kidnapping case, and the subsequent murder of the informant outlines gaps in the initial investigation phases. (C.) Failure to Protect Witnesses and Informants: The murder of Tekni Devi and threats to other family members indicate a severe lapse in providing necessary protection to key individuals involved in the case, thereby possibly losing crucial leads in the investigation. (D.) Delayed Legal Proceedings: Delay in initiating legal proceedings (ex. Application for polygraph test) against the accused individuals and in conducting review meetings could have allowed crucial evidence to be tampered with or destroyed, making it more challenging to prosecute the case successfully. (E.) Lack of Specialized Investigative Techniques: Failure to employ modern investigative techniques and technologies at the early stages of the investigation could have hindered the collection of crucial evidence and slowed down the investigation process. (F.) Incomplete Forensic Analysis: Lack of thorough forensic analysis on any potential evidence collected during the investigation could have missed vital clues, especially in establishing the identity of the accused and understanding the sequence of events leading to the crimes.” (xvii) The Director General of Police, Jharkhand filed another counter affidavit dated 08-11-2017 wherein it was stated that pursuant to the directions issued by the office of the Director General of Police (D.G.P), Jharkhand and the Superintendent of Police (S.P), Giridih, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted. (xviii) Adhering to the directives issued by the Office of the D.G.P, Jharkhand on 24-04-2017, the S.P, Giridih submitted a compliance report vide memo No. 9401 dated 07-11-2017 encapsulating the following points:- “(a.) Arrest of named accused persons:- i. Accused Sushila Devi was apprehended and remanded to judicial custody on 29.04.2017. ii. Accused Chhakni Devi surrendered before the court on 04.07.2017 and was subsequently granted bail. (b.) Actions taken for recovery of missing victim girl:- i. Constitution of a SIT ii. Effort to garner information regarding the victim from neighbouring villages, confidential sources, intelligence setups, and close relatives yielded no significant leads. iii. ii. Accused Chhakni Devi surrendered before the court on 04.07.2017 and was subsequently granted bail. (b.) Actions taken for recovery of missing victim girl:- i. Constitution of a SIT ii. Effort to garner information regarding the victim from neighbouring villages, confidential sources, intelligence setups, and close relatives yielded no significant leads. iii. Site visits and inquiries conducted at various locations including schools, religious gatherings, and last known whereabouts, yet no substantial clues have been obtained. iv. Communication with out-of-station residents for any information regarding the victim has been initiated but to no avail. v. Details of photographs of the victim have been circulated to teams involved in ‘Operation Muskan’ per memo No. 264/DCB dated 17.06.2017. vi. Hue & Cry notices have been dispatched to all states via Memo No. 263/DCB dated 17.06.2017. vii. Information requisition has been sent to State and Central Child helplines via memo No. 265/DCB dated 17.06.2017. viii. Print media, Television and pamphlet compaigns have been launched to disseminate information regarding the victim, facilated through PRD Dept., Giridih as per memo No. 234/DCB dated 24.05.2017. ix. Call detail analysis of certain mobile numbers is ongoing for any possible leads as per memo No. 1756/C dated 15.06.2017. x. Requests for Polygraph/Brain Mapping/Narco Test of four accused individuals have been submitted for judicial authorization, pending Court approval." (xix) The qualitative assessment of the counter affidavit dated 08-11-2017 would indicate following concerns with the investigation:- “(A.) The Rightful Actions of the Respondent as per the Affidavit are as follows: i. Formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to expedite the investigation process. ii. Timely arrest and judicial processing of certain accused individuals. iii. Comprehensive attempts to gather information from various sources regarding the kidnapped victim. iv. Coordination with various departments and utilization of multiple platforms to disseminate information about the victim. (B.) The continued Oversight committed by the Respondent are as follows: i. Delayed Initiation and Adaptation: The delay in the constitution of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) subsequent to the directives issued by the Director General of Police (D.G.P) represents a significant oversight. This delay may have resulted in the loss of critical time, during which essential evidence might have been collected or preserved. This delay may have resulted in the loss of critical time, during which essential evidence might have been collected or preserved. The subsequent modification of the SIT as per memo No. 6859 dated 23-08-2017 also demonstrates a lack of initial foresight in assembling a team with the requisite expertise and jurisdictional authority to effectively investigate the matter. ii. Inefficacious Investigative Methodologies: Despite extensive inquiries and efforts to gather information regarding the kidnapped victim, the SIT has failed to obtain substantial leads. This raises concerns regarding the efficacy of the investigative methodologies employed. The inability to procure significant information from neighbouring villages, confidential sources, intelligence setups, and close relatives suggests a possible deficiency in the utilization of modern investigative tools and techniques. iii. Inadequate Surveillance and Intelligence Gathering: The ongoing surveillance and call detail analysis have yet to yield any substantial clues. This might indicate inadequate technical expertise or insufficient coordination with telecommunications providers and cyber forensic experts. Moreover, the lack of actionable intelligence raises concerns about the effectiveness of the intelligence gathering mechanisms in place.” (xx) A counter affidavit was filed by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sadar, Giridih on 10.10.2018 stating that the Police had sought approval for administering polygraph and mind mapping tests of the accused in connection with Bagodar P.S. Case No. 88 of 2010, however, the requests were declined by the learned C.J.M, Giridih vide order dated 02-01-2017 and subsequently by the District & Additional Sessions Judge-1, Giridih in S.T. No. 264 of 2017 vide an order dated 09-03-2018. Moreover, restatements of several witnesses were obtained including Ghanshyam Singh, Damodar Mahto, Basudeo Pandit (Teacher), Basudeo Mahto, Pokhan Pandit, Bodhi Pandit, Pawan Kumar, Manoj Mandal, Sudha Devi and Kokil Mandal. Additionally, the restatements of the relatives of the abducted girl, namely, Sakuntala Devi, Teklal Pandit, Pawan Kumar and Bodhi Pandit were also recorded. In an extensive attempt to ascertain the whereabouts of the abducted girl, covert operatives were dispatched to various districts within the State of Jharkhand and to other States. Despite these widespread efforts, no substantial clues emerged and the girl remained untraceable. (xxi) The qualitative assessment of the counter affidavit dated 10-10-2018 would denote following concerns pertaining to the investigation: “(A.) Lack of Forensic Advancement: The inability to secure judicial approval for palaeographic and mind mapping tests signifies a possible gap in portraying the necessity and legality of such advanced forensic examinations. The order dated. (xxi) The qualitative assessment of the counter affidavit dated 10-10-2018 would denote following concerns pertaining to the investigation: “(A.) Lack of Forensic Advancement: The inability to secure judicial approval for palaeographic and mind mapping tests signifies a possible gap in portraying the necessity and legality of such advanced forensic examinations. The order dated. 02-01-2017 passed by learned C.J.M, Giridih denying permission was not challenged in revision and attained finality. The subsequent order dated 09-03-2018 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge-l, Giridih in S.T Case No. 264 of 2017 was also not challenged in appellate or revisional jurisdiction. (B.) Witness Restatement Frequency: The frequent restatement of witnesses and relatives might indicate a lack of clarity or consistency in the information initially provided potentially undermining the credibility of the evidence. (C.) Inadequate Investigative Reach: Despite the deployment of covert operatives, the failure to obtain significant leads regarding the abducted girl's whereabouts may highlight a need for enhanced investigative techniques and resources.” (xxii) Another counter affidavit was filed on 31.01.2019 by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sadar, Giridih stating that meeting of the SIT was held on 12-11-2018 and necessary instructions were given to the members of the SIT for recovery of the victim girl. The members of the SIT visited the place of occurrence and nearby villages, but no clue was found. The SIT visited ‘’Chichaki’’ railway station and deputed spy, however, no clue was found. The SIT put forth ‘Operation Muskan’ and also sent ‘’Hue and Cry’’ notice to all the States with a request for recovery of the victim girl, but she could not be traced. The I.O of the case visited the office of the Child Welfare Committee and established contact with the officers present there and discussed with them regarding method of contact with all child welfare committees situated outside the State so that the victim girl could be recovered, if she was in “Balika Grih” of any State. The police also displayed the photograph of the victim girl in print media and circulated pamphlets as well as her photo was flashed on Television. The police applied for polygraph test/brain mapping/narco test of some of the accused persons, however, the same was rejected by the C.J.M, Giridih on 02.01.2017. The police also displayed the photograph of the victim girl in print media and circulated pamphlets as well as her photo was flashed on Television. The police applied for polygraph test/brain mapping/narco test of some of the accused persons, however, the same was rejected by the C.J.M, Giridih on 02.01.2017. (xxiii) The qualitative assessment of the counter affidavit filed on 31.01.2019 highlights the following concerns regarding the investigation:- “(A.) Rightful Action: Establishing contact with Child Welfare Committees to broaden the scope of the search beyond state boundaries, exemplifying a meticulous approach to locate the victim. (B.) Oversight Committed: i. Unyielding Investigative Techniques: The repeated emphasis on similar investigative techniques, despite their prior inefficacy, might suggest a need for diversifying the investigative methodologies. ii. Delayed Engagement with Welfare Entities: The delayed engagement with Child Welfare Committees might have potentially impeded the prompt recovery of the victim. iii. Lack of Psychological Profiling: There is no mention of psychological profiling of the accused or potential suspects, which could provide valuable insights into the behavioural patterns and possible whereabouts of the missing girl. iv. Inadequate Victimology: A comprehensive victimological analysis, which could provide insights into possible motives and suspects, seems to be missing from the investigative approach.” (xxiv). Another supplementary counter affidavit was filed on 05.03.2019 by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sadar, Giridih stating inter alia that the S.I.T vide requisition dated 13-02-2019 sought authorization from the Superintendent of Police, Giridih for continuation of the investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. The Superintendent of Police instructed the Officer-in-Charge, Saria Police Station to submit a formal application for the 'Polygraph Test' of the accused persons and thereafter the Officer-in-Charge of Saria Police Station duly filed an application before the learned Trial Court seeking permission to conduct the Polygraph Test of the accused persons. (xxv) The qualitative assessment of the counter affidavit dated 05.03.2019 would reveal the concerns associated with the investigation as detailed herein:- “(A.) Delayed Polygraph Test: The requisition for conducting a polygraph test appears to be significantly delayed which could have potentially make it difficult the early recovery of critical information concerning the victim's whereabouts. (B.) Lack of Transparency: The reports to the higher authorities seem to have been conducted in a routine manner, rather than an ongoing, transparent exchange of information which could invite more insightful inputs. (B.) Lack of Transparency: The reports to the higher authorities seem to have been conducted in a routine manner, rather than an ongoing, transparent exchange of information which could invite more insightful inputs. (C.) Inadequate Training and Resources: The officers and the Special Investigation Team (SIT) might not have been provided with sufficient training and resources necessary to handle such complex and serious crimes. (D.) Bureaucratic Hurdles: The bureaucratic process seems to have slowed down critical steps in the investigation, like the approval and conduct of the polygraph test. (E.) Lack of Periodic Review: There isn't a clear mechanism for a periodic review of the investigation's progress by an independent or higher authority, who could have observed the same in fresh perspectives by possibly correcting any ongoing misdirection. (F.) Data Management and Analysis: Effective data management and analysis systems seem to be lacking which could help in organizing a vast amount of information efficiently and deriving actionable insights.” (xxvi) A supplementary counter affidavit was filed on 02.08.2022 by the respondent No.2 stating that in Sessions Trial Case No. 264 of 2017 arising out of Bagodar (Saria) Police Station Case No. 88 of 2010, all the five accused persons were acquitted vide judgment dated 26.03.2019 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih as well as in Saria P.S. Case No. 134 of 2016 (S.T. Case No. 34 of 2017), all the accused persons were also acquitted vide judgment dated 27.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Giridih. (xxvii) The qualitative assessment of the counter affidavit dated 02-08-2022 would reveal the following concerns associated with the investigation:- “(A.) Witness Preparation: Lack of adequate witness preparation and support, leading to the declaration of key witnesses as hostile, which might have delayed the justice process. (B.) Investigative Continuity: Despite the hostile witnesses and the demise of the original complainant, it appears that there was a lack of strong mechanism to ensure the continuity and thoroughness of the investigation. (C.) Inefficacy in Locating the Missing Victim: Despite the elapse of nearly a decade, the authorities have been unsuccessful in tracing the missing girl, indicating a potential lack of rigor or resources in the investigative process. (C.) Inefficacy in Locating the Missing Victim: Despite the elapse of nearly a decade, the authorities have been unsuccessful in tracing the missing girl, indicating a potential lack of rigor or resources in the investigative process. (D.) Failure in Establishing Concrete Evidence: The acquittal of all accused individuals in related cases signifies a failure in establishing concrete evidence linking the accused to the alleged crimes.” (xxviii) Another supplementary counter affidavit was filed on 24.08.2022 on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Giridih wherein it was stated that during investigation, one Farid Ansari had stated before the Investigating Officer about an individual, namely, Kailash Pandit referred as 'Jijaji' and further inquiries revealed that the said Kailash Pandit was in relation with the victim Priti Kumari, who was his cousin sister-in-law. Following this lead, two police squads were assembled to inspect the residences of Kailash Pandit and his brother Binod Pandit. Thereafter, one team of police was sent to Hanskopal Puri-Odisha & Udupi- Karnataka, while the other proceeded to Maharashtra. Despite the raids and heightened surveillance, the victim could not be found. Under police duress, Binod Pandit & Kailash Pandit returned their native village situated within Giridih district, whereupon their statements were recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, who expressed ignorance regarding whereabouts of the victim girl. It has further been stated that the friend of the victim girl were also interrogated, who asserted that Priti Kumari was untraceable since 2010 and her current location still remained unknown. Additional interrogation of one of the suspects, namely, Tulsi Pandit was done, who narrated that on 25-04-2010 at about 08:30 AM, he met the victim girl en route Chichaki and upon her request, he gave lift to her to Chichaki Railway Station. It has also been stated that vide order dated 07-08-2022 passed by the respondent No.2, three investigative teams of Police were constituted under the leadership of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bagodar-Sariya (Giridih) and were assigned to depart to the specified destinations across Maharashtra, Bihar and West Bengal to expedite search of the victim girl, however, no pertinent information regarding the victim girl came out. The teacher of the victim girl, namely, Nemchand Mahto and his son Ravikant Verma were also interrogated, however, no fruitful result came. The teacher of the victim girl, namely, Nemchand Mahto and his son Ravikant Verma were also interrogated, however, no fruitful result came. (xxix) The qualitative assessment of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 24.08.2022 would denote following concerns:- “(A.) Inconsistencies in Testimonies: The contradictory statements of Bodhi Pandit exhibit a lack of clarity or possible coercion in obtaining testimonies, which could potentially derail the investigation. (B.) Unproductive Leads: Failure in obtaining any substantial information or locating the victim, even after deploying multiple teams across various states, indicates a possible lack of coordination or inadequacy in follow-up procedures. (C.) Lack of Coordination among Investigative Teams: The narrative of the events reveals that multiple teams were sent to various locations without a clear indication of a centralized coordination mechanism. Effective communication and coordination among different teams was vital for sharing information and ensuring the consistency of investigative efforts, which seems to be lacking here. (D.) Delayed or Reactive Investigative Steps: Some actions, such as formation of investigative teams and raids, appear to be delayed or reactive rather than proactive. Timely actions are critical in cases of missing persons to follow leads while they are still fresh. (E.) Unstructured Interrogation Process: The interrogation process, as narrated, seems unstructured with lack of follow-up on obtained leads. An organized and systematic approach towards interrogations and follow-ups could potentially uncover more relevant information. (F.) Failure to Engage External Expertise: There's no mention of engaging external experts or agencies that might have brought a fresh perspective or additional resources to the investigation.” (xxx) Finally, a supplementary counter affidavit was filed on 11.10.2022 on behalf of the respondent No.2 wherein the period of posting of all the Superintendents of Police, Giridih, the Sub-Divisional Police Officers, Giridih and the officers designated as Investigating Officers in connection with Bagodar (Saria) P.S. Case No. 88 of 2010 were given. 6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae, also highlights the sequential details of the judicial proceedings arising from Bagodar (Saria) P.S. Case No. 88 of 2010 and Saria P.S. Case No. 134 of 2016 which are as follows:- “(I.) On 08-05-2010, as per the Order Sheet of Ld. CJM, Giridih, Bagodar (Sariya) P.S. Case No. 88 of 2010 was registered as G.R. No. 1013 of 2010 and the case was fixed for 08-09-2010. (II.) On 02-01-2017, Ld. CJM, Giridih, Bagodar (Sariya) P.S. Case No. 88 of 2010 was registered as G.R. No. 1013 of 2010 and the case was fixed for 08-09-2010. (II.) On 02-01-2017, Ld. C.J.M, Giridh vide order dated 02-01-2017 passed in the said P.S. Case No. and G.R. No., rejected the application preferred by the I.O for conducting Polygraph Test of the accused persons named in the F.I.R. primarily on two grounds: A. Placing Reliance on the Judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Selvi & Ors v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974 to reason that Polygraph Test violates the right against self-incrimination. B. Taking notes of the fact that the Investigating Officer had evidently submitted that till that time, no material evidence could be collected during the investigation process showing involvement of the accused persons in the alleged offence of kidnapping the victim girl. Hence, on mere suspicion of the Police, permission to grant polygraph test could not be granted. (III.) On 27-02-2018, Saria P.S. Case No. 134 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 2396/2016, was adjudicated in Sessions Trial Case No. 34 of 2017, wherein the learned Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons namely, (1). Horil Pandit, (2). Mitthu Mahto, (3). Salamat Ansari, (4). Dhiraj Pandit, (5). Md. Jainul Ansari & (6). Majid Ansari. The primary reasons for learned Trial Court to reach its findings are as follows: - (A.) Reliance on Circumstantial Evidence: The prosecution heavily relied on circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, as there were no eyewitnesses to the alleged kidnapping or murder. (B.) Hostile Witnesses: The prosecution faced significant hurdle of key witnesses, including the informant (PW 4) and family members (PW 3 & PW 6), who had turned hostile. (C.) Inconsistencies in Testimonies: There were glaring inconsistencies between the initial statements made in the 'fardbeyan' (complaint) and the testimonies of the witnesses produced during trial. The informant's testimony, in particular, did not corroborate the events as initially reported, affecting the reliability of the prosecution's case. (D.) Lack of Concrete Evidence: There was lack of concrete evidence linking the accused persons to the alleged crimes. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the "last seen theory," which had not been satisfactorily established. The confessional statements of the accused had also been contested with claims that signatures were obtained forcibly by the police. (D.) Lack of Concrete Evidence: There was lack of concrete evidence linking the accused persons to the alleged crimes. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the "last seen theory," which had not been satisfactorily established. The confessional statements of the accused had also been contested with claims that signatures were obtained forcibly by the police. (E.) Argument on Accident: The defense's argument that the death was accidental and murder was also not supported by the husband of the deceased which undermined the prosecution's case. (F.) Application of the Last Seen Theory: The application of the "last seen theory" was crucial as the time gap between the last sighting of the accused with the deceased and when the deceased's body recovered, was minimal. In this case, the theory was discarded as there wasn't substantial evidence to show that the accused were last seen with the deceased, making it unsafe to link the accused to the crime solely based on this theory. (G.) Motive for the Crime: There is a necessity for the prosecution to establish a motive, especially in a case built on circumstantial evidence. Here, the alleged motive was a land dispute and financial matters related to dispute of share in compensation amount. However, key witnesses did not corroborate this motive, leaving a serious element of doubt regarding the prosecution's narrative. (H.) Medical Evidence and Cause of Death: The post-mortem report indicated that the cause of death was accidental, which contradicted the prosecution's claim of homicidal death. The inconsistency of evidence further weakened the prosecution's case. (I.) Conclusion: The inconsistencies in testimonies, lack of concrete evidence, and procedural challenges posed significant hurdles for the prosecution in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. (IV.) Vide order dated 09-03-2018, learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-l, Giridih, rejected the similar application preferred by the I.O. in Sessions Trial Case No. 264 of 2017 for conduct of Polgygraph Test of the accused persons named in the F.I.R. primarily on two grounds: A. That earlier also a prayer for conducting Polygraph Test was rejected by Ld. CJM, Giridih, vide order dated 02-01-2017 and no revision was preferred against the said order and as such the order of the C.J.M had become final. B. Further it appeared in this case that chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons on 04-12-2017 and two witnesses were already examined. CJM, Giridih, vide order dated 02-01-2017 and no revision was preferred against the said order and as such the order of the C.J.M had become final. B. Further it appeared in this case that chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons on 04-12-2017 and two witnesses were already examined. So, at that stage, prayer made for Polygraph test of the accused persons could not be entertained by the said Court as trial against accused persons had already began. (V.) On 26-03-2019, the Ld. District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih in Sessions Trial Case No. 264 of 2017, acquitted all the accused persons in Bagodar (Saria) P.S. Case No. 88 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 1013/2010, basing his findings on followings points: A. Initially, a case was registered under section 366(A) of IPC, but post-investigation, the charge sheet was filed under sections 364 and 120(B)/34 of IPC. B. Witness Testimonies: All the prosecution witnesses turned hostile, which was a significant setback for the prosecution. The witnesses either claimed ignorance about the incident or denied any wrongdoing by the accused. The hostility of witnesses raised concerns about the effectiveness and thoroughness of the police investigation and witness protection, as mandated by the SOP. C. Absence of Key Witnesses: The prosecution neither examined the informant (due to her death) nor the Investigating Officer (for reasons not provided) and the victim girl (as she was traceless), which was a grave omission. The SOP underlines the importance of a thorough investigation and engagement of various stakeholders, including the police, legal authorities, and medical professionals, among others, to ensure justice and child welfare. D. Failure to Establish Charges: The prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal of all the accused. The judgment mentions a false charge sheet submitted on mere suspicion.” 7. It is further submitted that Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) has been formulated by the Ministry of Women & Child Development, Government of India in compliance of the order dated 10.05.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bachpan Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(Civil) No. 75/2012] reported in (2014) 16 SCC 616 whereby roles and responsibilities of stakeholders have been determined for dealing with the cases of missing children, however, the same have been ignored by the investigating authorities while dealing with the present case. 8. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(Civil) No. 75/2012] reported in (2014) 16 SCC 616 whereby roles and responsibilities of stakeholders have been determined for dealing with the cases of missing children, however, the same have been ignored by the investigating authorities while dealing with the present case. 8. It is further submitted that in the backdrop of the foregoing discussions, it is relevant to comment on the nature, quality, method and intent of investigation carried out in the present case. For ease of reference, this segment is divided into three parts. The First Part will endeavour to trace the compliance with S.O.P dated 23.11.2016 and the steps taken by the S.I.T constituted vide order dated 24-8-2017 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Giridih. The Second Part will provide general observations on the quality of the investigation carried out by the investigating authorities. The Third Part will provide recommendations based on the evaluation of nature of the investigation carried out by the investigating authorities, which all appeared to be faulty and misguided having failed to locate the missing girl or prosecute the case before the learned Trial Courts. The aforesaid three parts of the investigation have been illustrated as under: “(I.) Compliance of the Investigation with the S.O.P. issued by Union Ministry of Women & Child Development: A. Initiation of Investigation: SOP Mandate: The SOP necessitates the immediate registration of an FIR upon receiving a complaint regarding a missing child, as a case of trafficking or abduction. This is aimed at prompt initiation of the investigative process. Respondents' Action: The respondents have delineated the registration of an FIR and the initiation of the investigation, albeit the immediacy of the FIR registration post-receipt of the complaint is not distinctly elucidated in the affidavits. B. Engagement of Specialized Units and Multi-Agency Coordination: SOP Mandate: The SOP advocates the engagement of specialized units like the Anti-Human Trafficking Unit, especially if the child remains untraced for four months or if elements of organized crime are suspected. Additionally, it emphasizes robust multi-agency coordination among various stakeholders. - Respondents' Action: The narrative provided does not clearly explicate the engagement of specialized units or the multi-agency coordination, which could potentially indicate a deviation from the SOP. Additionally, it emphasizes robust multi-agency coordination among various stakeholders. - Respondents' Action: The narrative provided does not clearly explicate the engagement of specialized units or the multi-agency coordination, which could potentially indicate a deviation from the SOP. C. Publicity and Community Engagement: - SOP Mandate: The SOP prescribes wide publicity through various channels, including media, social networking portals, and local community engagement, to augment the chances of recovering the missing child. - Respondents' Action: The respondents' narrative lacks information on the actions taken for wide publicity and community engagement. The absence of such information may indicate non-adherence to this aspect of the SOP. D. Risk Assessment and Specialist Engagement: - SOP Mandate: The SOP necessitates a risk assessment to determine the urgency of investigation and the engagement of specialists where required. - Respondents' Action: The affidavits do not encompass a detailed risk assessment or engagement of specialists, which could signify a lack of adherence to the SOP in this regard. E. Recovery and Post-Recovery Procedures: - SOP Mandate: The SOP outlines a structured procedure post the recovery of the missing child, encompassing medical examination, home verification, legal support, and rehabilitation. - Respondents' Action: The child's recovery has not been mentioned in the respondents' narrative, hence the execution of post-recovery actions as mandated by the SOP remains untested. F. Supervision and Accountability: - SOP Mandate: The SOP stipulates a supervisory framework to ensure adherence to the guidelines, with mechanisms for reward/punishment and a monitoring system for reviewing the status of each case periodically. - Respondents' Action: The narrative does not provide detailed insights into the supervisory framework employed or the accountability mechanisms in place, which could potentially signify a deviation from the stipulated SOP guidelines. (II.) General Observations on the Quality of Investigation leading to Acquittal: A. Prejudiced and Lethargic Investigation: It is discernible from the first counter affidavit filed by Respondent No. 3 that the investigation was not aimed at diligently pursuing the whereabouts of the missing girl but was directed towards substantiating the biased assertions of the Investigating Officer. For elucidation, it is pertinent to note that the Investigating Officer should have exercised a heightened degree of professional discernment, especially in the light of the pre-existing marital discord between the informant, Tekni Devi, and her spouse, Teklal Pandit, coupled with the alleged property disputes involving substantial financial stakes. For elucidation, it is pertinent to note that the Investigating Officer should have exercised a heightened degree of professional discernment, especially in the light of the pre-existing marital discord between the informant, Tekni Devi, and her spouse, Teklal Pandit, coupled with the alleged property disputes involving substantial financial stakes. Any testimony or statement emanating from the relatives of Horilal Pandit, the prime accused in Bagodar (Saria) P.S. Case No. 88 of 2010, who had provided the same with vested interests, warranted a meticulous and impartial scrutiny by the investigating authority. However, the deposition of Jageshwar Pandit, a relative of Horilal Pandit, was unjustifiably utilized as a linchpin to cast aspersions on the integrity of the informant, Tekni Devi, subsequently placing her under unwarranted surveillance. This scenario unfolds a bemusing narrative. Tekni Devi, along with members of her paternal lineage, should have been under an expansive surveillance net. It raises the question as to the inexplicable failure in identifying the looming threat vectors around these individuals, a lapse that tragically culminated in the murder of Tekni Devi on 03-09-2016. Thereafter, in the backdrop of the above, it appears that the operational dynamics surrounding the surveillance and monitoring activities, which had failed to furnish any concrete or credible lead regarding the missing girl, were arguably orchestrated in an unprofessional and unethical demeanor. B. Stalled Investigation: ASI Raj Kumar Singh, serving as the Investigating Officer from 18-11-2014 to 05-02-2016, effectively stalled the investigation on hyper-technical grounds, as noted by this Hon'ble Court in its order dated 26- 04-2016. C. Misallocation & Squandering of Resources: It's a fundamental expectation that a modicum of due diligence be exercised to circumvent the unwarranted expenditure of resources, particularly in sensitive matters such as the instant case. However, this requisite diligence appears to have been conspicuously bypassed, as evinced by the constitution of a full-scale team dispatched to execute a raid based on a feeble lead in Goregaon, Mumbai, with the aim of locating the missing girl. Regrettably, the endeavour not only proved futile but was also misdirected, as the girl recovered at the raid's locus was not the subject of the search, but was an entirely different individual. This glaring misadventure could have been adroitly averted if there had been a more concerted coordination between the state police forces of the involved states. Regrettably, the endeavour not only proved futile but was also misdirected, as the girl recovered at the raid's locus was not the subject of the search, but was an entirely different individual. This glaring misadventure could have been adroitly averted if there had been a more concerted coordination between the state police forces of the involved states. A formal request could have been extended to the local police of the jurisdiction where the lead of the investigation had pointed, to conduct a preliminary verification of the lead's veracity, and if necessary, to assemble and forward a profile based on the lead, thereby conserving invaluable resources and time. In a parallel vein of misdirected endeavours, a similar episode of an unjustified team raid unfolded in Udupi, Karnataka. The ostensible premise for this expedition was to unravel the identity of individuals who were consistently channelling funds into the bank account of present petitioner i.e. Bodhi Pandit-the maternal uncle of the missing girl, who was concurrently under surveillance. Yet again, the lack of a foundational due diligence and a well- thought-out investigative strategy was glaring. Had a meticulous examination of the underlying circumstances been undertaken, it could have been easily discerned that the individuals making regular deposits in the bank account of Bodhi Pandit were his close relatives; specifically, Mukesh Pandit (Son) and Madan Pandit (Brother- in-law). The upshot of this ill-conceived raid, devoid of any substantial lead regarding the missing girl, underscores a reactionary rather than a methodical approach on the part of the investigating authorities in navigating through the intricate and delicate tapestry of this investigation. D. Investigative Procrastination serving as Anathema to Justice: It is an irrefutable tenet that the essence of justice is intertwined with the swift execution of due process. However, the chronology of events in the present case starkly belies this fundamental principle. The narrative commenced with the disappearance of the girl on 25-04-2010, followed by the filing of the First Information Report on 07-05-2010. The subsequent trajectory of the investigation, marked by its languorous pace and lack of efficacy, necessitated the initiation of a Writ Petition on 23-06-2011. Despite the ensuing period of regular observation by this Hon'ble Court, it took until 04-12-2017 for the chargesheet to be filed, culminating in the acquittal of all the accused by the Learned Trial Court on 26.03.2019. The subsequent trajectory of the investigation, marked by its languorous pace and lack of efficacy, necessitated the initiation of a Writ Petition on 23-06-2011. Despite the ensuing period of regular observation by this Hon'ble Court, it took until 04-12-2017 for the chargesheet to be filed, culminating in the acquittal of all the accused by the Learned Trial Court on 26.03.2019. The protracted delay in tracing the whereabouts of the missing victim is the comprehensive failure on the part of the Investigating Authorities and the prosecution. Their approach, characterized by a discernible lack of professionalism and an apparent cavalier attitude, has undeniably thwarted the course of justice. Such a delay not only derails the dispensation of justice but also exacerbates the anguish and uncertainty endured by the stakeholders, thereby undermining the very crux of the judicial system. E. Administrative Inertia and Overlooked Procedures in Polygraph Testing: The layers of inadequacy in the investigative process are further unveiled upon scrutiny of the administrative handling and procedural overlook concerning conduct of the polygraph test, as delineated below: i. Initial Accusation: The inception of the investigative trail was marked by the original informant, Tekni Devi, through her FIR statement unequivocally identifying Horil Pandit (her brother-in-law) as a pivotal figure in disappearance of the victim girl. ii. Preliminary Assessment: Contrary to the clear-cut allegations aimed at Horil Pandit, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bogodar-Sariya, Giridih deduced that the circumstances warranted a case under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, albeit the allegations made against the accused persons were deemed inconclusive. iii. Discrepant Evaluation: In a subsequent turn, the Superintendent of Police, Giridih, dissented with the SDPO's preliminary assessment, thereby mandating a deeper exploration of the matter at hand. iv. Polygraph Test Endeavor: Following the directives given by the office of the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, endeavours were initiated to conduct a polygraph test on the accused persons of Bagodar (Saria) P.S. Case No. 88/10. A formal application was tendered before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Giridih, soliciting permission for the said test. v. Judicial Rebuke: The aforementioned application was repudiated by the Learned CJM, Giridih, through an order dated 02-01-2017; which rejection remained unchallenged by the state in any appellate or revisional forum, thereby gaining finality. vi. Repetitive Plea: In a repetitive vein, the Investigating Officer re-approached the Superintendent of Police, Giridih, to authorize for conducting Polygraph Test upon the accused persons. v. Judicial Rebuke: The aforementioned application was repudiated by the Learned CJM, Giridih, through an order dated 02-01-2017; which rejection remained unchallenged by the state in any appellate or revisional forum, thereby gaining finality. vi. Repetitive Plea: In a repetitive vein, the Investigating Officer re-approached the Superintendent of Police, Giridih, to authorize for conducting Polygraph Test upon the accused persons. This repeated plea, juxtaposed against the backdrop of the earlier dismissal by the Learned CJM, Giridih, highlights a glaring procedural oversight. vii. Subsequent Judicial Disapproval: The District & Additional Sessions Judge-l, Giridih, through an order dated 09-03-2018, also dismissed the request for conducting Polygraph test and the said decision remained unchallenged in higher judicial forum. viii. Unwarranted Recurrence: The conduct of the I.O. to seek permission from S.P, Giridih once again for the Polygraph test, appears to be misguided and devoid of any substantial basis, thereby reflecting continuous administrative lethargy and procedural neglect. F. Lack of Comprehensive Evidence Collection: The core of both cases saw a glaring lack in collecting substantial evidence. The failure to collect convincing evidence against the accused showcased an absence of a rigorous evidence collection procedure. G. Inadequate Exploration of Motive: The investigative agencies failed to delve deeply into potential motives behind the alleged crimes. H. Inefficacy in Applying the Last Seen Theory: The misapplication of the last seen theory due to lack of supportive evidence indicates a shortfall in investigative thoroughness. I. Medical Evidence Discrepancy: The contradiction between the prosecution's homicide narrative and the medical evidence suggesting accidental death displays an oversight in correlating forensic findings with the alleged criminal events. J. Inadmissibility of Confessional Statements: The inadmissibility of confessional statements due to non- compliance with legal procedures reflects a lack of adherence to legal protocols by the investigating agencies. K. Incomplete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: The disjointed and incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence unveils a lack of meticulousness in stitching together a coherent narrative backed by solid evidence. L. Unresolved Status of the Missing Girl: The fact that the missing girl remains unrecovered illuminates a serious deficiency in the investigative follow-through. (III) Recommendations based on the evaluation of nature of the investigation carried out by the investigation authorities: “1. L. Unresolved Status of the Missing Girl: The fact that the missing girl remains unrecovered illuminates a serious deficiency in the investigative follow-through. (III) Recommendations based on the evaluation of nature of the investigation carried out by the investigation authorities: “1. Embrace Technology-Driven Scientific Investigation: A. Development of State-Level Missing Persons Database: - Establish a comprehensive and centralized database for missing persons at the state level, encompassing detailed descriptive and biographical data of each individual whose missing case has been reported. B. Public Engagement through Online Portals and Mobile Applications: - Disseminate the information contained within the missing persons database to the public domain via an accessible online portal and a dedicated mobile application. - Encourage strategic advertising campaigns to enhance public awareness and solicit active community participation in the reporting and identification of missing individuals. - Propose an incentive scheme to encourage public contributions in providing critical information concerning missing children. 2. Leverage Government Identification Programs: Utilization of Aadhar (UIDAI) Infrastructure: Harness the existing infrastructure of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to create biometric profiles for recovered children kept in shelter homes across the state of Jharkhand and further explore the potential for nationwide linkages to facilitate quicker identification and reunification of missing children with their families. 3. Digitalization and Real-Time Accessibility of Records: A. Digital Transformation of Existing Records: Undertake a robust digital transformation initiative to convert existing records of missing children and those kept in shelter homes into a digital format. Ensure real-time accessibility of such digital records to relevant authorities, thereby expediting the identification process and enhancing the efficacy of investigative procedures. B. Cloud-Based Record Keeping: Transition to a cloud- based record-keeping system to ensure data integrity, real-time access, and facilitation of inter-agency data sharing. 4. Enhanced Inter-State and Inter-Agency Coordination: A. Formalized Coordination Protocols: Formulate and institutionalize formal protocols governing inter-state and inter-agency coordination to ensure seamless information and resource exchange. B. Joint Task Forces: Establish joint task forces comprising personnel from different states and agencies to tackle complex and trans-boundary investigative challenges. 5. Investment in Capacity Building and Continuous Training: A. Training Programs on Modern Investigative Techniques: Design and implement continuous training programs to acquaint investigative personnel with modern investigative techniques, ethical practices, and technological tools. B. Joint Task Forces: Establish joint task forces comprising personnel from different states and agencies to tackle complex and trans-boundary investigative challenges. 5. Investment in Capacity Building and Continuous Training: A. Training Programs on Modern Investigative Techniques: Design and implement continuous training programs to acquaint investigative personnel with modern investigative techniques, ethical practices, and technological tools. B. Development of Comprehensive Training Modules: Create a diverse range of training modules covering contemporary investigative techniques, ethical conduct, legal frameworks, and soft skills essential for effective policing and investigation. Ensure that these modules are regularly updated to reflect the evolving nature of crime, legal frameworks, and technological advancements. C. Establish Research and Development Units: Set up dedicated research and development units within law enforcement agencies to study emerging trends in crime, evaluate the effectiveness of current practices, and develop innovative solutions. D. Continuous Professional Development (CPD) Programs: Introduce mandatory CPD requirements to ensure that the police personnel remain updated and continuously enhance their skills and knowledge. 6. Recommendations concerning Erring Police Officials: A. Jurisprudential Framework for Accountability: In light of the instructive judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar', (2014) 8 SCC 273 , a clear legal precedent has been established regarding the accountability of police officers pertaining to adherence to stipulated procedures governing arrests. The judgment unequivocally mandates departmental inquiry against officers exhibiting disregard for such directives. The basis of such departmental inquiry is an act of official negligence such as not following the statutory mandates as contained in Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. B. Grounds for Departmental Inquiry: Derivation of authority for instituting departmental inquiries is based upon the observance of established procedures for investigation. If a discernible deviation or negligence on part of the entrusted authorities in adhering to such procedures is emerged, it empowers the writ court to deliberate on the broader implications thereof, and consequently issue directives for initiation of departmental inquiries against the erring officials. This mechanism serves as a pathway for purifying the channels of justice and reinforcing public trust in the institutional framework. C. Application to the Instant Matter: By extending the aforementioned legal principle to the prevailing circumstances of the instant case, it reveals that there is a substantial non-conformity in following the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) promulgated by the Union Ministry, among other discernible lapses. C. Application to the Instant Matter: By extending the aforementioned legal principle to the prevailing circumstances of the instant case, it reveals that there is a substantial non-conformity in following the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) promulgated by the Union Ministry, among other discernible lapses. The investigation is spoiled by a pattern of mechanical responses and acute lethargy, which manifests unprofessionalism, especially concerning the case of untraced whereabouts of the missing victim girl. These transgressions not only hamper the progress of the investigation but also significantly erode the integrity of the investigative process. D. Initiation of Departmental Enquiry against erring officials including I.O.'s, S.D.P.O.'s and members of the S.I.T.: The gross delay & latches attributable to the erring police officials which refuted in conducting a poor investigation ought to be reprimanded with initiation of departmental enquiries against them.” 9. The present writ petition was filed in the year 2011 and since then this Court monitored the case from time to time by issuing directions to the investigating officer(s) as well as the high ranking police officers with a view that the investigation of the case should go on the right direction to trace the missing girl. 10. Some of the orders/directions passed/issued by this court are being mentioned hereinbelow:- 02.03.2012 Three weeks’ time was earlier granted to the State to search the victim girl. The court further observed that the present case was related to the safety of the daughter of the original petitioner and as such even if her daughter was safe in the hands of her in-laws, the Court wanted to assure that the State might take help of her in-laws in searching out her daughter and directed to submit a report to that effect. 27.07.2012 The then S.P, Giridih was personally present in the Court, who submitted that two teams were constituted to trace the victim girl. The applicant of I.A. No. 529/2012, namely, Horil Pandit-one of the accused persons was allowed to address the court at the time of hearing of the case. 21.09.2012 State was granted two weeks’ time to give latest position of the investigation. The police was directed not to harass the original petitioner and to proceed towards the investigation to find out the girl after the submission of learned counsel for the original petitioner to the effect that the police was harassing the original petitioner and her family members. 21.09.2012 State was granted two weeks’ time to give latest position of the investigation. The police was directed not to harass the original petitioner and to proceed towards the investigation to find out the girl after the submission of learned counsel for the original petitioner to the effect that the police was harassing the original petitioner and her family members. 28.03.2016 The Investigating Officer of Bagodar/Saria P.S Case No. 88 of 2010 was directed to remain physically present in the court on 11.04.2016 alongwith up-to-date status of the investigation. 26.04.2016 Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, A.S.I. appeared in the court and submitted that he took the charge of the investigation of Bagodar (Sariya) P.S. case no. 88 of 2010 on 23.11.2014 and remained incharge of the same till 05.02.2016. Thereafter, he handed over the charge of the investigation to the Officer-in-Charge, Saria Police Station. Mr. Singh produced the case diary of the period, during which he remained incharge of the investigation. The court observed that Paragraph no.214 of the case diary showed that Mr. Raj Kumar Singh took charge of the investigation on 23.11.2014 and he remained incharge of the investigation till 05.02.2016 and during that period he examined two witnesses on 23.02.2015. Thereafter, he did nothing in this case towards investigation. Thus, it appeared that he had kept the file with him for about One year without doing any investigation and in view of the Court, it was a gross dereliction of duty on the part of Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, A.S.I, Sariya Police Station. Under the said circumstance, the court referred the matter to the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi for taking disciplinary action against Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, A.S.I, Sariya Police Station, in accordance with law, for dereliction of duty. It was further observed that final report had not been submitted in this case till date and as such the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi was directed to look into the matter and got the investigation completed within three months. 14.07.2017 The learned S.C (L &C) referring to the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Investigating Officer of Bagodar (Sariya) P.S. Case No. 88 of 2010 submitted that the investigation of this case was still running and in course of investigation, accused Horil Pandit, Raju Pandit, Shushila Devi and Tulsi Pandit were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. 14.07.2017 The learned S.C (L &C) referring to the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Investigating Officer of Bagodar (Sariya) P.S. Case No. 88 of 2010 submitted that the investigation of this case was still running and in course of investigation, accused Horil Pandit, Raju Pandit, Shushila Devi and Tulsi Pandit were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Accused Chhakni Devi had surrendered before the concerned court below and was granted bail on 03.07.2017. It was further submitted that initially the S.D.P.O, Sadar, Giridih found the case true under Section 366(A) I.P.C., but came to the conclusion that the allegation against the named accused persons was false. Thereafter, report-2 was issued by the office of the Superintendent of Police, Giridih, who disagreed with the findings of the S.D.P.O and directed the Investigating Officer to take all possible steps for recovery of the victim girl. It was further submitted that the Investigating Officer of the case also filed an application before the learned C.J.M., Giridih for conducting polygraph test of the accused, but the same was rejected by the learned C.J.M., Giridih vide order dated 02.01.2017. It was also submitted that in course of investigation, two police teams had been sent to Odisha and Maharashtra in search of the victim girl. The mobile numbers of the informant and the maternal uncle of the victim namely, Bodhi Pandit were put on surveillance, but no fruitful result had appeared till date. The missing information along with photograph of the victim girl had also been published in the local newspapers. The court ordered for filing of a supplementary counter-affidavit on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Giridih stating as to for what reason, the application filed by the Investigating Officer for conducting polygraph test of the accused persons was rejected by the court of C.J.M, Giridih. It was also directed that the said affidavit would disclose as to what further steps had been taken by the police for recovery of the victim girl. 11.08.2017 I.A. No. 5948 of 2017 filed by the present petitioner namely Bodhi Pandit was allowed to substitute his name in the place of the original petitioner since she was died. Pursuant to the order dated 14.07.2017, supplementary counter affidavit dated 04.08.2017 was filed by S.D.P.O, Sadar, Giridih along with the order dated 02.01.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in Bagodar P.S. Case no. Pursuant to the order dated 14.07.2017, supplementary counter affidavit dated 04.08.2017 was filed by S.D.P.O, Sadar, Giridih along with the order dated 02.01.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in Bagodar P.S. Case no. 88 of 2010 which revealed that the C.J.M had rejected the application filed by the Investigating Officer of the said case for polygraph test of the accused persons primarily on the ground that since the date of lodging of the F.I.R. of this case, the police had not been able to collect any cogent evidence against the accused persons. Moreover, the consent of the accused persons was not taken by the Investigating Officer before filing of the said application before the learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and hence, Polygraph test (Lie detecter Test) could not be done by the investigating agency. Learned S.C. (L & C) submitted that the progress of the investigation was being reviewed by the office of the Director General of Police, Jharkhand. Pursuant to the review meeting dated 24.07.2017 held in the office of the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi headed by Additional Director General of Police, CID, Jharkhand, some of the accused persons were arrested and some of them had surrendered before the concerned court below. The Investigating Officer was investigating the case under the instruction of senior police officers. However, the victim girl had not been recovered as no specific clue, was available with the police. It was further submitted that the charge-sheet against the accused persons namely Horil Pandit @ Sunil Pandit, Raju Pandit @Rajendra Pandit, Chakni Devi, Sushila Devi and Tulsi Pandit had been submitted in the concerned court below on 14.07.2017, keeping the investigation pending on the point of recovery of victim Priti Kumari. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the supplementary counter affidavit dated 04.08.2017 as well as on perusal of the relevant documents placed on record, the Court was of the view that the police had investigated the present case (Bagodar (Saria) P.S. Case no. 88 of 2010) in a very casual manner. Moreover, the police had not taken any effective step for recovery of the victim girl in time. 88 of 2010) in a very casual manner. Moreover, the police had not taken any effective step for recovery of the victim girl in time. In view of the said circumstance, the Director General of Police, Jharkhand was directed to constitute a special team headed by an officer having the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police for recovery of the victim girl. The status report in this regard was directed to be submitted before this Court by way of an affidavit filed on behalf of the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, within a period of six weeks. 06.10.2017 Vide order dated 11.08.2017, a status report regarding effective steps taken for recovery of the victim girl was directed to be submitted before this Court by way of an affidavit filed on behalf of the Director General of Police, Jharkhand. Despite the said clear direction, the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 13.09.2017 filed by the then S.D.P.O, Bagodar-Sariya, Giridih did not suggest that the same was filed on behalf of the Director General of Police, Jharkhand. In view of the said fact, the Director General of Police, Jharkhand was directed to file personal affidavit in the light of the direction given by this Court vide order dated 11.08.2017, on or before 08.11.2017 failing which, the Director General of Police, Jharkhand was directed to remain physically present before this Court to explain the reason. 08.07.2022 It appeared that during pendency of the present writ petition, the accused persons of Bagodar (Sariya) P.S. Case No. 88/2010 [G.R. No. 1013/2010] were acquitted by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih vide judgment dated 26.03.2019 passed in S.T No. 264/2017. On perusal of the said judgment, it appeared that none of the prosecution witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution. The petitioner of this case, namely, Bodhi Pandit @ Bodhi Mahto was also examined in the trial as PW.5 and he had deposed that as per information given to him by her sister Tekni Devi (the mother of the victim), Priti Kumari (victim) went somewhere and could not be traced out. P.Ws. 2 & 3 had deposed that the victim fled away with a person whereas PW.4 deposed that the victim fled away and solemnized marriage with a person. P.Ws. 2 & 3 had deposed that the victim fled away with a person whereas PW.4 deposed that the victim fled away and solemnized marriage with a person. The Court observed that it was a matter of utmost surprise that till conclusion of the trial, which ended in acquittal of the accused persons, the police had not been able to trace out/recover the victim girl and if the deposition of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses was taken to be true, the victim girl must had been staying somewhere in India. Hence, the inaction of the police in not tracing the victim girl, could not be ignored by this Court. The Court further observed that though the present writ petition was pending for last about 11 years wherein different affidavits were filed by the police officials on which several directions were given to recover the victim girl, yet she could not be traced till conclusion of the trial. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court showing displeasure against the police officials, directed the Superintendent of Police, Giridih to remain physically present before this Court on the next date fixed. 05.08.2022 Pursuant to order dated 08.07.2022, the Superintendent of Police, Giridih-the respondent No.2 was present before this Court and submitted that he would make all possible endeavour to trace the girl. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned AAG-II, submitted that even after conclusion of the trial, the police were still trying to trace the girl, keeping in view the observation made by this Court in order dated 08.07.2022. However, the police did not have any specific clue about her. Considering the seriousness involved in the present case, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate, was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court. 26.08.2022 The respondent no. 2 was physically present before the Court and had filed a supplementary counter affidavit was also filed on his behalf justifying the investigation conducted in this case. However, the Court was not pleased with the manner in which the present case had been investigated by the police, as it had no clue regarding the fate of the victim girl. Hence, the respondent no. 2 was directed to file a supplementary counter affidavit furnishing the details on the following points: (i) The names of all Superintendents of Police who were posted from the date of lodging of the FIR till the conclusion of the trial alongwith their period of posting. Hence, the respondent no. 2 was directed to file a supplementary counter affidavit furnishing the details on the following points: (i) The names of all Superintendents of Police who were posted from the date of lodging of the FIR till the conclusion of the trial alongwith their period of posting. (ii) The names and designations of all the Supervising Officers as well as the Investigating Officers of Bagodar (Saria) P.S. Case No. 88/2010 with the duration they were involved with the said case. 04.11.2022 Pursuant to the order dated 26.08.2022, a supplementary counter affidavit dated 11.10.2022 was filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 disclosing the names of concerned Superintendents of Police, Giridih as well as the supervising officers and investigating officers of Bagodar (Sariya) P. S. Case No. 88/2010. 11. The primary question falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether the investigating officers as well as the other police officers/officials, who were monitoring the present case, had shown their due diligence or promptness in searching the victim girl or they took lethargic/ill motivated/misdirected approach which resulted in not tracing the victim girl and ending in acquittal of the named accused persons. 12. In the case of Hori Lal Vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors. reported in 2002 SCC OnLine SC 37, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “11. For the time being as suggested by Learned Authority General and learned counsel for the parties for having effective search of the Kidnapped minor girls, following steps shall be taken by the Investigation Officer in all the States: (1) Publish photographs of the missing persons in the Newspaper, telecast them on Television promptly, and in case not later than one week of the Receipt of the complaint. Photographs of a missing person shall be given wide publicity at all the prominent outlets of the city/town/village concerned that is at the Railway Stations, Inter-state bus Stands, airport, regional passport office and through law enforcement personnel at Border checkpoints. This should be done promptly and in any case not later than one week of the receipt of the complaint. But in case of a minor/major girl such photographs shall not be published without the written consent of the parents/guardians. (2) Make inquiries in the neighborhood, the place of work/study of the missing girl from friends colleagues, acquaintance, relatives etc. immediately. But in case of a minor/major girl such photographs shall not be published without the written consent of the parents/guardians. (2) Make inquiries in the neighborhood, the place of work/study of the missing girl from friends colleagues, acquaintance, relatives etc. immediately. Equally all the clues from the papers and belongings of the missing person should be promptly investigated. (3) To contact the Principal, Class teacher and Students at the missing persons most recent school/educational institutions. If the missing girl or woman is employed somewhere, then to contact the most recent employer and her colleagues at the place of employment. (4) Conduct an inquiry into the whereabouts from the extended family of relatives, neighbours, school teachers including school friends of the missing girl or woman. (5) Make necessary inquiries whether there have been past incidents or reports of violence in the family. 12. There after the investigation officer/agency shall: (a) Diligently follow up to ensure that the records requested from the parents are obtained and examine them for clues. (b) Hospitals and Mortuaries to be searched immediately after receiving the complaint (c) The reward for furnishing clues about missing person should be announced within a month of her disappearance. (d) Equally Hue and Cry notices shall be given within a month. (e) The Investigation should be made through women police officers as far as possible. (f) The concerned police commissioner or the DIG/IG of the State Police would find out the feasibility of establishing a multitask force for locating girl children women. (g) Further, in the Metropolitan cities such as Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai the Investigating Officer should immediately verify the red light areas and try to find out the minor girls. If any minor girl (may or may not be recently brought there) is found her permission be taken and she may be taken to the children's home (Sec 34 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of the Children) Act 2000, and the I.O. to take appropriate steps that all medical/other facilities are provided to her. 13. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments and the Union Territories for taking effective steps for implementation. Adjourned for six months.” 13. 13. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments and the Union Territories for taking effective steps for implementation. Adjourned for six months.” 13. During pendency of the present case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bachpan Bachao Andolan (Supra) while discussing in detail the manner in which the cases of missing children are to be handled, has held as under:- “10. The other suggestion of NALSA is that a Standard Operating Procedure must be developed to handle the cases of missing children and to invoke appropriate provisions of law where trafficking, child labour, abduction, exploitation and similar issues are disclosed during investigation or after the recovery of the child, when the information suggests the commission of such offences. As part of the Standard Operating Procedure, a protocol should be established by the local police with the High Courts and also with the State Legal Services Authorities for monitoring the case of a missing child. In Delhi, such a protocol could be established with the help of the All India Legal Aid Cell on Child Rights, set up by NALSA, in association with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority, and the petitioner herein, Bachpan Bachao Andolan. In fact, the same could be treated as a nodal agency of the All India Legal Aid Cell on Child Rights. 11. We have given directions in regard to the utilisation of the para-legal volunteers, which is one of the suggestions made on behalf of NALSA. 12. As has been pointed out by Mr Phoolka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, an Office Memorandum was issued on 31-1-2012, by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, by way of an advisory on missing children and the measures needed to prevent trafficking and for tracing of such children. In the said office memorandum, a missing child has been defined as a person below eighteen years of age, whose whereabouts are not known to the parents, legal guardians and any other person, who may be legally entrusted with the custody of the child, whatever may be the circumstances/causes of disappearance. The child will be considered missing and in need of care and protection within the meaning of the latter part of the Juvenile Act, until located and/or his/her safety/well being is established. 13. The child will be considered missing and in need of care and protection within the meaning of the latter part of the Juvenile Act, until located and/or his/her safety/well being is established. 13. In case a missing child is not recovered within four months from the date of filing of the first information report, the matter may be forwarded to the Anti-Human Trafficking Unit in each State in order to enable the said Unit to take up more intensive investigation regarding the missing child. The Anti-Human Trafficking Unit shall file periodical status reports after every three months to keep the Legal Services Authorities updated. It may also be noted that, in cases where first information reports have not been lodged at all and the child is still missing, an FIR should be lodged within a month from the date of communication of this order and further investigation may proceed on that basis. Once a child is recovered, the police authorities shall carry out further investigation to see whether there is an involvement of any trafficking in the procedure by which the child went missing and if, on investigation, such links are found, the police shall take appropriate action thereupon. 14. The State authorities shall arrange for adequate shelter homes to be provided for missing children, who are recovered and do not have any place to go to. Such shelter homes or after-care homes will have to be set up by the State Government concerned and funds to run the same will also have to be provided by the State Government together with proper infrastructure. Such homes should be put in place within three months, at the latest. Any private home, being run for the purpose of sheltering children, shall not be entitled to receive a child, unless forwarded by the Child Welfare Committee and unless they comply with all the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, including registration.” 14. The Ministry of Women & Child Development has formulated a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on 23.11.2016 for dealing with the cases of missing children as per the directives of the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued in the case of Bachpan Bachao Andolan (Supra). 15. The Ministry of Women & Child Development has formulated a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on 23.11.2016 for dealing with the cases of missing children as per the directives of the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued in the case of Bachpan Bachao Andolan (Supra). 15. The objective of the SOP is to put in place the guidelines while dealing with the cases of missing children and to work in coordination with the stakeholders as well as to respond with urgency relating to the issues of missing children ensuring expeditious and effective law enforcement including prosecution. Moreover, the said SOP has been formulated to create mechanism and systems to prevent further victimization of missing children. It also envisages to ensure that appropriate and timely protection/care/attention is provided to victims/witnesses. 16. As per the SOP, the missing child may be one who is lost (separated from family), has left home on his/her own without a notice or has been abducted or kidnapped or trafficked or abandoned. The SOP for the cases of missing children defines the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders including the police, Child Welfare Committees (CWCs) and Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs). Clause IV of the said SOP provides as under: “IV. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF STAKE HOLDERS When the Child goes missing: Police a) As per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued in the case of Bachpan Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India (WP (Civil) 75 of 2012) on 10th May 2013, - “upon receipt of a complaint regarding a missing child, an FIR should be registered forthwith as a case of trafficking or abduction?. b) Inform the Child Welfare Police Officer and forward the FIR to the Special Juvenile Police Unit for immediate action for tracing the child. c) The police shall also: i. Collect a recent photograph of the missing child and make copies for District Missing Persons Unit, Missing Persons Squad, National Crime Records Bureau/Media etc.; ii. Fill the form “M” on the designated portal www.trackthemissingchild.gov.in. iii. Fill the specific designated “Missing Persons Information Form” and immediately send to Missing Persons Squad, District Missing Persons Unit, National Crimes Records Bureau, State Crimes Records Bureau, Central Bureau of Investigation, PCRs, Railway Police and other related institutions; iv. Fill the form “M” on the designated portal www.trackthemissingchild.gov.in. iii. Fill the specific designated “Missing Persons Information Form” and immediately send to Missing Persons Squad, District Missing Persons Unit, National Crimes Records Bureau, State Crimes Records Bureau, Central Bureau of Investigation, PCRs, Railway Police and other related institutions; iv. Send the copy of the FIR by post/email to the office of nearest Legal Services Authority along with addresses and contact phone numbers of parents and legal guardians of the missing child or the child care institution, after uploading the relevant information onto the designated portal; v. Prepare sufficient number of Hue and Cry notice containing photograph and physical description of the missing child to be sent for publication; vi. Give wide publicity by publishing or telecasting the photographs and the description of missing child, as feasible in (a) leading newspapers (b) Television/electronic media, (c) local cable television network and (d) social media and thereafter submit for ratification by the Board or the Committee or the Children's Court, as the case maybe; vii. Give wide publicity in the surrounding area through the use of loud speakers and the distribution and affixture of ‘Hue and Cry’ notice at prominent places. Social networking portals, short message service alerts and slides in cinema halls can be used to reach out to the masses; viii. Distribute ‘Hue and Cry’ notice at all the outlets of the city or town, that is, railway stations, bus stands, airports, regional passport offices, and other prominent places. ix. Search areas and spots of interest such as movie theatres, shopping malls, parks, game parlours and areas where missing or runaway children should be identified and watched; x. Scan the recordings of the Close Circuit Television Cameras installed in the vicinity of the area from where the child was reported missing and on all possible routes, transit and destinations. xi. Inquire from under construction sites, unused buildings, hospitals and clinics, child line services and other local outreach workers, railway police and other places; xii. Details of missing children should be sent to the District Crime Records Bureau of the neighboring States and Station House Officers (SHOs) of the bordering police stations including incharge of all police posts in their jurisdiction and shall conduct regular interaction with the concerned so that follow up action is ensured. Details of missing children should be sent to the District Crime Records Bureau of the neighboring States and Station House Officers (SHOs) of the bordering police stations including incharge of all police posts in their jurisdiction and shall conduct regular interaction with the concerned so that follow up action is ensured. d) Invoke the services of District Legal Services Authorities through empanelled lawyers and the paralegal volunteer (PLV) appointed at the police station or the district authority. e) Upload information on the www.trackthemissingchild.gov.in portal. In case the information is already uploaded, match the complaint with case details uploaded on the portal. f) Assess the level of threat or danger to the child, or his/her family and take immediate steps to ensure their protection. g) Also inform immigration authorities, Border Security Force (BSF), Railways and other transport authorities, provincial/territorial and municipal agencies, and any NGOs involved in service delivery for spotting and recovering/rescuing the missing children. Risk Assessment As per the check list mentioned at Annexure-III of the SOP taking into consideration various parameters with respect to the missing child, risk assessment should be done and the "Risk Assessment Form" be filled out by the SHO/Officer in charge to determine the: i. The urgency of investigation ii. Areas of inquiry iii. Types of specialist knowledge that might be needed iv. The supervision that maybe required v. Agencies who may be first alerted Organized Crime Perspective 1. Where a child cannot be traced within a period of four months, the investigation of the case shall be transferred to the Anti Human Trafficking Unit in the district which shall make reports every three months to the District Legal Services Authority regarding the progress made in the investigation. 2. If trafficking or any other element of organized crime is suspected, a specialized team shall be instituted for investigation headed by the SHO. 3. Ensure the compliance of investigation as per the check list mentioned in Annexure–IV of the SOP. Steps to be taken when a child is found or recovered: 1. Police 1. After recovery, produce the child before CWC/JJB/Childre n' s Court, as the case may be, for appropriate directions. 2. The child should be examined by a team of medical experts, including psychosocial experts. 3. Proper home verification be carried out before the child is reunited with Parents/legal guardians through the CWC. 4. Police 1. After recovery, produce the child before CWC/JJB/Childre n' s Court, as the case may be, for appropriate directions. 2. The child should be examined by a team of medical experts, including psychosocial experts. 3. Proper home verification be carried out before the child is reunited with Parents/legal guardians through the CWC. 4. The recovery form “R” on the Track Child portal must be filled and data be updated in www.trackthemissingchild.gov.in. 5. Send a report to the District Legal Services Authority which shall provide counselling and support services to the child and the family. 6. Conduct an enquiry whether the child has been subjected to any offence under the Act or any other law and if so, proceed accordingly. 2. Supervising officer (Role of Supervising Officer overseeing the investigation) 1. Supervisory Officer should ensure that SOPs issued in this regard are strictly followed. She/he should also follow the illustrative (not exhaustive) checklist provided in Annexure-IV of the S.O.P. 2. Supervisory Officers should closely monitor and facilitate the investigation of each case of missing child, periodically review the status of each case and ensure quality of the investigation conducted. 3. Once the child is found, the Supervisory Officer should ensure that proper follow up actions are taken by the police. 4. The Supervisory Officer should ensure reward/punishment systems are in place. 5. The Supervisory Officer must ensure that full cooperation is given to the Para legal volunteers at the Police Stations and also to the District Legal Services Authorities and all grievances or issues are ironed out and addressed. 3. Child Welfare Committee a) When a missing child is found or recovered and/or a child in conflict with law is found to be a missing child by the JJB or the Police, he shall also be produced before the Committee, as the case may be, for appropriate direction. b) In case FIR is not registered in a case of missing/trafficked child, immediately forward the complaint/case to JJB, who shall direct the police for registration of FIR for such child and also for offences committed against such children in need of care and protection. c) Any three members of the Committee together, may take suo moto cognizance of any case of missing child, report to the police, or the Anti-Human Trafficking Unit (AHTU) immediately and initiate process of providing care and protection to the child. c) Any three members of the Committee together, may take suo moto cognizance of any case of missing child, report to the police, or the Anti-Human Trafficking Unit (AHTU) immediately and initiate process of providing care and protection to the child. d) Assess the needs of the child and pass orders with respect to repatriating the child or placing the child in a fit facility or with a fit person, or declare free for adoption or foster care, or any other arrangement by following due process of law, keeping in mind the best interest of the child. e) Engage services of the District Child Protection Unit (DCPU)/District Legal Services Authority in the source district of the found/traced child, to facilitate smooth and effective rehabilitation of the child, and for any other legal support. Ensure that the case of the child has been linked to the District Legal Services Authority. f) Ascertain if the child is in need of any medical care, and pass direction to link the child to the appropriate medical institution. g) In the absence of adequate proof of age, pass directions for age determination test of the child. The report of the test should be obtained immediately after the test results have been concluded. In the meantime, the child may be placed in a fit facility. h) Pass orders for recovery of back-wages of the child, in case the found or recovered child was trafficked for forced or/and bonded labour. i) Direct PO/Police/CWO/Childline/DCPU/Other organization for necessary action and follow up. j) Perform all duties specified under Section 30 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the rules framed therein, and send regular updates and report to the appropriate agency at the District/State level. 4. Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) a) If any found/traced child is produced before the Juvenile Justice Board as a child in conflict with law, such a child should immediately be redirected to the relevant Child Welfare Committee after due enquiry, for initiating the process of rehabilitation. b) In case FIR is not registered in a case of missing/trafficked child, immediately direct the police for registration of FIR for offences committed against children in need of care and protection. c) Ensure availability of free legal aid for the child through the District Legal Services Authority. b) In case FIR is not registered in a case of missing/trafficked child, immediately direct the police for registration of FIR for offences committed against children in need of care and protection. c) Ensure availability of free legal aid for the child through the District Legal Services Authority. d) Create an individual care plan as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the Rules made therein, for each child's including follow up by the Probation Officer of the District Child Protection Unit or a member of a non-governmental organisation, as it may be required as per Section 8(3)(h) or Section 19(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.” 17. The roles and responsibilities of police, supervising officer, Child Welfare Committee and Juvenile Justice Board have been detailed in the aforesaid SOP with respect to the cases where a complaint is received about any missing child or when a missing child is found or recovered. As per the SOP, the duty of the police is that upon receipt of any complaint about missing child, an FIR is to be registered forthwith as a case of trafficking or abduction and wide publication through different platforms has to be made about the missing child. It has further been mentioned that the police shall collect a recent photograph of the missing child and send copies of the same to the District Missing Persons Unit, Missing Persons Squad, National Crime Records Bureau/Media etc. It has been also stated that specifically designated ‘’Missing Persons Information Form’’ shall be filled and be immediately sent to Missing Persons Squad, District Missing Persons Unit, National Crimes Records Bureau, State Crimes Records Bureau, Central Bureau of Investigation, PCRs, Railway Police and other related institutions. It has also been provided that sufficient number of ‘Hue and Cry’ notice containing photograph and physical description of the missing child be prepared to be sent for publication. Moreover, areas and spots of interest such as movie theatres, shopping malls, parks, game parlours and areas where missing children can be identified and watched, be searched. Moreover, the recordings of the Close Circuit Television Cameras installed in the vicinity of the areas from where the reports of missing children are registered and on all possible routes, transit and destinations be scanned. 18. Moreover, the recordings of the Close Circuit Television Cameras installed in the vicinity of the areas from where the reports of missing children are registered and on all possible routes, transit and destinations be scanned. 18. Following facts have emerged from the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as well as the materials available on record:- (i) An FIR being Bagodar (Sariya) P.S. Case No. 88/10 was instituted under Sections 366(A)/34 of IPC on 07.05.2010 on the basis of fardbeyan of the original petitioner alleging that her daughter (victim girl) was missing since 25.04.2010 and in course of search, she came to know that the named accused persons had kidnapped the victim girl. (ii) The present writ petition was filed on 23.06.2011 i.e. after about one year of the lodging of the FIR with a prayer to take legal action against the accused persons, who were roaming freely in the locality. Further prayer was made for directing the respondents to take necessary action to search the victim girl. In this writ petition, the original petitioner raised doubt over the integrity of the police stating that the local police officials had connived with the accused persons and as such they were not investigating the case properly. (iii) During investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statement of the father-in-law and the husband of the original petitioner. The statement of one Baijnath Ram was also recorded and these witnesses pointed finger on the character of the victim girl as well as the original petitioner. They also alleged that a false case was instituted by the original petitioner to get share in her in-laws’ property. (iv) The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bagodar-Sariya, Giridih, who was supervising the investigation, totally relied upon the statements of the witnesses examined by the I.O and concluded that the case of kidnapping the victim girl was true, however, the allegation made against the accused persons was false. He failed to consider the statement of one of the accused persons, namely, Tulsi Pandit, who himself had disclosed that he had dropped the victim girl near the Railway Station, Chichaki and since then she was missing. Thus, the S.D.P.O, Bagodar-Sariya, Giiridih ignored the last seen theory. Though the FIR was lodged against the named accused persons, they were not interrogated by taking them in police custody. Thus, the S.D.P.O, Bagodar-Sariya, Giiridih ignored the last seen theory. Though the FIR was lodged against the named accused persons, they were not interrogated by taking them in police custody. (v) Both the investigating officer and the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bagodar, Sariya, Giridih failed to follow the directives issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hori Lal (Supra) wherein it has been specifically held that in the cases of kidnapping of minor girls, their photographs have to be published in the newspapers as well as be also telecast on Television promptly i.e. not later than one week of the receipt of the complaint. Further, photographs of missing minor girls have to be given wide publicity at all prominent outlets of the city/town/village concerned i.e. at Railway Stations, Inter-state bus Stands, airport, regional passport office and through law enforcement personnel at Border checkpoints. It has been further held that the investigating officer/agency are required to take the following steps:- (a) Diligently follow up important leads to ensure that the records requested from the parents are obtained which shall be examined for clues. (b) Hospitals and Mortuaries be searched immediately after receiving the complaint. (c) The reward for furnishing clues about missing person should be announced within a month of her disappearance. (d) Hue and Cry notices shall be issued within a month. (e) The investigation should be made through women police officers as far as possible. (f) The concerned police commissioner or the IG/DIG of the State Police would find out the feasibility of establishing a multitask force for locating girl children/women (g) Further, in the metropolitan cities such as Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai, the Investigating Officer should immediately verify the red light areas and try to find out the minor girls and if she is found, her permission be taken as well as she may be taken to the children's home and the I.O shall take appropriate steps to provide her all medical/other facilities. (vi) The manner in which the investigating officer started the investigation and the Sub-Divisional Police Officer supervised the same, create serious doubt on their integrity since on the one hand, they did not take appropriate prompt steps to search the victim girl and on the other hand, they pointed finger on the character of the victim girl and her mother i.e. the original petitioner. It appears that they wanted to somehow give the clean chit to the accused persons. (vii) The claim of the original petitioner was that she had inimical terms with her husband and the in-laws and as such they were making false allegation against her. The investigating officer and the Sub-Divisional Police Officer failed to consider that the original petitioner and the victim girl were not residing with her in-laws and as such the claim of the original petitioner that she had inimical terms with her in-laws was quite obvious, however, the said aspect was not considered by the investigating officer before baldly relying on the statements of her in-laws. (viii) It is further revealed that an interlocutory application i.e. I.A. No. 376 of 2012 was filed by the original petitioner alleging that Awadh Bihari Pandey, Inspector of Police and J.N Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Sariya Police Station had threatened her to withdraw the case. The said fact was required to be verified at the level of the higher police officers and if the said fact was found true, the same would have supported the claim of the original petitioner that the police were trying to close the matter in connivance with the accused persons. (ix) It further appears that the police made attempts to conduct raid in different States without proper co-ordination with the local police due to which they failed to trace the victim girl even after consuming lot of time and resources, which suggests that the said attempts were merely an eye wash. (x) On bare perusal of the judgment rendered in S.T No. 264/2017, arising out of Bagodar (Sariya) P.S. Case No. 88 of 2010, it appears that altogether five prosecution witnesses including the son and the brother of the original petitioner were examined, however, all the witnesses were declared hostile. The investigating officer was not examined in the said case, which was a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution. Resultantly, all the accused persons were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The investigating officer was not examined in the said case, which was a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution. Resultantly, all the accused persons were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. (xi) In S.T. No. 34/2017 arising out of Saria P.S. Case No. 134 of 2016 (corresponding to G.R. No. 2396/16), the informant of the case (son of the original petitioner) was declared hostile as he retracted from his statement made before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the said case, confessional statement of the accused persons was not recorded before the Magistrate, rather the same was recorded before the police, which was not admissible in evidence. The prosecution also failed to prove the motive behind the murder of the original petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. (xii) Thus, in both S.T No. 264/2017 and S.T No. 34/2017, the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused persons in the trial due to serious lapses on the part of the investigating officer. The investigating officer failed to collect concrete evidences against the accused persons. The confessional statements of the accused persons were also not recorded before the magistrate as mandated under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is quite possible that the son and the brother of the original petitioner retracted in the trial from their earlier statements made before the police due to fear of the accused persons since the police did not provide them proper protection so as to have self-confidence and courage to fearlessly depose in the trial. However, the facts reveal that the police did not gain trust of the witnesses and that may be a reason they retracted from their earlier statements in the Trial Court due to fear of the accused persons. The motive for murder of the original petitioner as stated in the counter affidavit i.e. the dispute with respect to share in the compensation amount of Rs.32,00,000/- pertaining to the property of the father-in-law of the original petitioner was also not proved by the prosecution in the trial. It has been specifically stated in the supplementary counter affidavit dated 13.09.2017 that the original petitioner was threatened of killing by the accused persons unless she withdrew the case. However, the police did not collect sufficient evidence regarding such threat so as to prove in the trial the motive of murder of the original petitioner. It has been specifically stated in the supplementary counter affidavit dated 13.09.2017 that the original petitioner was threatened of killing by the accused persons unless she withdrew the case. However, the police did not collect sufficient evidence regarding such threat so as to prove in the trial the motive of murder of the original petitioner. (xiii) It further appears that the application for polygraph test of the accused persons was rejected by the learned C.J.M, Giridih on 02.01.2017 primarily due to the reason that the police had failed to collect any material showing involvement of the accused persons in the said case. Learned C.J.M had also observed that though the accused persons were named in the FIR, the police had not arrested them for interrogation since the investigating officer was not sure about their involvement on the basis of his investigation till the aforesaid date, moreover, the consent for the polygraph test was not obtained from the accused persons. Thus, the application for polygraph test was not allowed by the Court due to lapses on the part of the investigating officer, who had not collected any material evidence against the accused persons. Curiously enough, the order of learned C.J.M, Giridih was not challenged in the higher Court(s) and as such the same attained finality. The said act of the investigating officer shows his half-hearted attempt to collect vital informations about the victim girl. (xiv) Even after formulation of the SOP dated 23.11.2016 in compliance of the order dated 10.05.2013 passed in Bachpan Bachao Andolan (Supra), the SIT formed in the present case did not strictly follow the guidelines given in the said SOP and the infirmities committed by the SIT have been appropriately highlighted by learned Amicus Curiae in his written notes of argument and the same have been referred at Paragraph 08 of this judgment. (xv) In a case like the present one, prompt action was needed to trace the missing girl, however, the investigating officer failed to do so. Though few actions like formation of SIT, publication in the newspaper and telecast in the television etc. about the missing of the victim girl were taken after the direction of this Court, however, no fruitful result came due to the delay in taking such steps. Though few actions like formation of SIT, publication in the newspaper and telecast in the television etc. about the missing of the victim girl were taken after the direction of this Court, however, no fruitful result came due to the delay in taking such steps. (xvi) In the present case, the chargesheet was submitted after a huge delay and due to such protracted investigation, the truth could not be surfaced. (xvii) The steps for keeping the mobile phones of the accused persons and the original petitioner along with the present petitioner on surveillance were taken after a huge delay, which is also one of the reasons for no fruitful outcome. (xviii) The police failed to give protection to the informant and the witnesses of S.T. Case No. 264/2017 and S.T. No. 34/2017, which appears to be a cause of retraction of the witnesses in the Court from their earlier statements made before the police. 19. Thus, in the present case, there are bundle of errors committed by the investigating officer(s) as well as the Sub-Divisional Police Officers, who were investigating and reviewing the investigation of the case of the missing/victim girl due to which she could not be traced out in spite of several directions issued by this Court. 20. There are three main stakeholders of criminal justice system in India, namely, police, prosecution and judiciary. The police are the first which come in contact with the accused and victim and assist the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused before the judiciary through its investigation. If the police do not play their role effectively and with due diligence, the entire prosecution case is bound to fall in the Court and ultimately the victim does not get justice. Thus, it is imperative that the police must perform its role effectively and diligently. 21. In the case of Ram Bihari Yadav Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1998) 4 SCC 517 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if a negligent investigation or omissions or lapses committed due to perfunctory investigation are not effectively rectified, the faith and confidence of the people in the law-enforcing agency would be shaken. Therefore, the police have to demonstrate utmost diligence, seriousness and promptness. 22. In the case of Pooja Pal Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2016) 3 SCC 135 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “95. Therefore, the police have to demonstrate utmost diligence, seriousness and promptness. 22. In the case of Pooja Pal Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2016) 3 SCC 135 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “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 India, (2014) 2 SCC 532 ] 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.” 96. The avowed purpose of a criminal investigation and its efficacious prospects with the advent of scientific and technical advancements have been candidly synopsised in the prefatory chapter dealing with the history of criminal investigation in the treatise on 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. 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 recognising 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.” (emphasis supplied) 23. In the case of Dayal Singh Vs. State of Uttaranchal reported in (2012) 8 SCC 263 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus:- “21. The investigating officer, as well as the doctor who are dealing with the investigation of a criminal case, are obliged to act in accordance with the Police Manual and the known canons of medical practice, respectively. They are both obliged to be diligent, truthful and fair in their approach and investigation. A default or breach of duty, intentionally or otherwise, can sometimes prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. An investigating officer is completely responsible and answerable for the manner and methodology adopted in completing his investigation. Where the default and omission is so flagrant that it speaks volumes of a deliberate act or such irresponsible attitude of investigation, no court can afford to overlook it, whether it did or did not cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution. Where the default and omission is so flagrant that it speaks volumes of a deliberate act or such irresponsible attitude of investigation, no court can afford to overlook it, whether it did or did not cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution. It is possible that despite such default/omission, the prosecution may still prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the court can so return its finding. But, at the same time, the default and omission would have a reasonable chance of defeating the case of the prosecution in some events and the guilty could go scot-free. We may illustrate such kind of investigation with an example where a huge recovery of opium or poppy husk is made from a vehicle and the investigating officer does not even investigate or make an attempt to find out as to who is the registered owner of the vehicle and whether such owner was involved in the commission of the crime or not. Instead, he merely apprehends a cleaner and projects him as the principal offender without even reference to the registered owner. Apparently, it would prima facie be difficult to believe that a cleaner of a truck would have the capacity to buy and be the owner, in possession of such a huge quantity i.e. hundreds of bags of poppy husk. The investigation projects the poor cleaner as the principal offender in the case without even reference to the registered owner.” 24. The present case is also a glaring example of irresponsible investigation. It is not a case of faulty investigation simpliciter, but also demonstrates malignity and an attempt to ensure that the suspect can go scot-free. 25. Now, the question for consideration before this Court is as to what can be the appropriate direction to be issued in the present case. 26. In the case in hand, long 13 years have already passed since the date of missing of the victim girl and in spite of several directions issued by this Court, no clue has been found about her. That apart, the named accused persons have also been acquitted since the prosecution failed to prove the charges against them beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Under the said circumstance, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping the present criminal writ petition pending. That apart, the named accused persons have also been acquitted since the prosecution failed to prove the charges against them beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Under the said circumstance, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping the present criminal writ petition pending. However, some action is required to be taken against the erring officers/officials, who have failed to discharge their public duty sincerely and diligently, rather their acts suggest that they tried to falsify the case itself by pointing finger at the character of the victim girl as well as her mother i.e. the original petitioner. 27. Police are the executive force of the State which are entrusted with the duty of maintaining law and order as well as peace and harmony in the society. They also play a vital role in prevention and detection of crime. It is the duty of the police to live up to the expectations of the society. Rendering service in police force is not a profession, but a solemn duty to ensure peace and harmony in the society as well as sense of security to the people. Their foremost duty is to act promptly and sincerely to safeguard and uphold human rights as well as to protect life, liberty and property of citizens without any pretence. The people of the country expect from the police to be humane, efficient, professional and disciplined. The Police officials should keep in mind that like every other citizen, they too are subject to the rule of law and are liable for their actions in discharging the assigned duties. The policemen while discharging duties and responsibilities, must avoid all temptations to have recourse to short-cuts and extra-legal methods. 28. In the case of Nagesh Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2012) 6 SCC 477 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed the Director General of Police/Commissioner of Police, Karnataka to take disciplinary action against the police officers/officials, who failed to discharge their entrusted public duties and mandatory obligations under the provisions of the Police Manual and the Code of Criminal Procedure. 29. In the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai & Ors. reported in (2014) 5 SCC 108 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “22. Every acquittal should be understood as a failure of the justice delivery system, in serving the cause of justice. 29. In the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai & Ors. reported in (2014) 5 SCC 108 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “22. Every acquittal should be understood as a failure of the justice delivery system, in serving the cause of justice. Likewise, every acquittal should ordinarily lead to the inference, that an innocent person was wrongfully prosecuted. It is therefore essential that every State should put in place a procedural mechanism which would ensure that the cause of justice is served, which would simultaneously ensure the safeguard of interest of those who are innocent. In furtherance of the above purpose, it is considered essential to direct the Home Department of every State to examine all orders of acquittal and to record reasons for the failure of each prosecution case. A Standing Committee of senior officers of the police and prosecution departments should be vested with the aforesaid responsibility. The consideration at the hands of the above Committee, should be utilised for crystallising mistakes committed during investigation, and/or prosecution, or both. The Home Department of every State Government will incorporate in its existing training programmes for junior investigation/prosecution officials course-content drawn from the above consideration. The same should also constitute course-content of refresher training programmes for senior investigating/prosecuting officials. The above responsibility for preparing training programmes for officials should be vested in the same Committee of senior officers referred to above. Judgments like the one in hand (depicting more than ten glaring lapses in the investigation/prosecution of the case), and similar other judgments, may also be added to the training programmes. The course-content will be reviewed by the above Committee annually, on the basis of fresh inputs, including emerging scientific tools of investigation, judgments of courts, and on the basis of experiences gained by the Standing Committee while examining failures, in unsuccessful prosecution of cases. We further direct, that the above training programme be put in place within 6 months. This would ensure that those persons who handle sensitive matters concerning investigation/prosecution are fully trained to handle the same. Thereupon, if any lapses are committed by them, they would not be able to feign innocence when they are made liable to suffer departmental action for their lapses. 23. On the culmination of a criminal case in acquittal, the investigating/prosecuting official(s) concerned responsible for such acquittal must necessarily be identified. Thereupon, if any lapses are committed by them, they would not be able to feign innocence when they are made liable to suffer departmental action for their lapses. 23. On the culmination of a criminal case in acquittal, the investigating/prosecuting official(s) concerned responsible for such acquittal must necessarily be identified. A finding needs to be recorded in each case, whether the lapse was innocent or blameworthy. Each erring officer must suffer the consequences of his lapse, by appropriate departmental action, whenever called for. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the matter, the official concerned may be withdrawn from investigative responsibilities, permanently or temporarily, depending purely on his culpability. We also feel compelled to require the adoption of some indispensable measures, which may reduce the malady suffered by parties on both sides of criminal litigation. Accordingly, we direct the Home Department of every State Government to formulate a procedure for taking action against all erring investigating/prosecuting officials/officers. All such erring officials/officers identified, as responsible for failure of a prosecution case, on account of sheer negligence or because of culpable lapses, must suffer departmental action. The above mechanism formulated would infuse seriousness in the performance of investigating and prosecuting duties, and would ensure that investigation and prosecution are purposeful and decisive. The instant direction shall also be given effect to within 6 months. 24. A copy of the instant judgment shall be transmitted by the Registry of this Court, to the Home Secretaries of all State Governments and Union Territories, within one week. All the Home Secretaries concerned, shall ensure compliance with the directions recorded above. The records of consideration, in compliance with the above direction, shall be maintained.” 30. Thus, the Court may order for initiation of departmental proceeding against the erring police officers/officials even when they have retired from service if it is found that such police officers/officials have failed to discharge their entrusted public duty and mandatory obligations under the provisions of the Police Manual and the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the present case also, the concerned investigating officers and the supervising officers/Sub-Divisional Police Officers have committed serious lapses and as such it would be appropriate to pass an order for initiation of departmental proceeding against such erring investigating officers and the supervising officers/Sub-Divisional Police Officers. 31. In the present case also, the concerned investigating officers and the supervising officers/Sub-Divisional Police Officers have committed serious lapses and as such it would be appropriate to pass an order for initiation of departmental proceeding against such erring investigating officers and the supervising officers/Sub-Divisional Police Officers. 31. Accordingly, the present writ petition is being disposed of with the following directions:- (i) The Director General of Police, Jharkhand is directed to get disciplinary proceedings initiated against the erring investigating officers, namely, Awdhesh Singh-A.S.I, R. R. Pandey-S.I, Jaynandan Singh-A.S.I and erring supervising officers, namely, Ram Rekha Singh-S.D.P.O, Bagodar-Sariya, Giridih, Shatrughan Rajak (D.S.P)-I/c, S.D.P.O as well as Awadh Bihari Pandey-Inspector of Police, Sariya Police Station whether they are in service or have retired from service. (ii) That D.G.P is directed to get an enquiry conducted and departmental proceedings initiated against other police officers/officials also, who are found to have failed in discharging their duties as police officers with due diligence, which resulted in not tracing the victim girl even after 13 years of lodging of FIR. (iii) The D.G.P is also directed to arrange training programme for the police officers/officials wherein they will be trained as to how the cases of missing persons (particularly children) have to be investigated and during the training, they will be made aware about the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bachpan Bachao Andolan (Supra) and Hori Lal (Supra) as well as the SOP dated 23.11.2016 framed by the Ministry of Women & Child Development, Government of India for dealing with the Cases of Missing Children. In the training programme, the police officials shall also be made aware of the modern investigative techniques. (iv) The D.G.P is also directed to arrange programme/classes so as to train the investigating officers to inspire full confidence/trust of the informants while investigating the cases of missing girls so that they fully co-operate with the investigation and give important clues about the concerned missing girl. (v) There shall be established a centralized database for missing persons at the State level and the same shall be linked with the database of other States as well as any database maintained by the Central Government wherein the details of all the missing persons including the persons recovered will be given and the same will be easily accessible to the public at large. (vi) There shall be established online portal for public so that they can give information about any missing person and the public shall be made aware about such online portal through large scale advertisement so that public may play active role in reporting and identification of missing individual. (vii) The D.G.P is also directed to examine as to whether any Standing Committee has been constituted in compliance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Gujarat (Supra) to examine every case of acquittal so that the reasons for the failure of each prosecution case may be recorded and if the Committee has not yet been formed, the same shall be formed within one month from the date of this order and thereafter place the judgment of S.T. Case No. 264/2017 and S.T. No. 34/2017 to find out the lapses of the investigating officers. Lapses so found shall be included in the training programme of the police officials. (viii) It is seen that in most of the cases, the witnesses turn hostile in the Court due to fear/threat of the accused persons due to which the prosecution case fails and thus there is requirement to train the police officials to get confidence/trust of the people so that they give deposition in the Court fearlessly. 32. Let this order be communicated to the Director General of Police, Jharkhand.