SC rejects pleas for case transfer, re-probe J&K opposes petition challenging acting DGP’S appointment

SUPREME COURT BENCH SAID THERE WAS NO REASON TO INTERFERE; THE ACCUSED COULD RAISE THEIR ISSUES BEFORE THE LOWER COURT AT PUNJAB’S PATHANKOT

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday rejected two pleas by the accused in the Kathua gangrape and murder case, with one seeking a fresh investigation alleging “motivated” probe by the state police and the other demanding that the probe be transferred to an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

A bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and DY Chandrachud said there was “no reason to interfere” in the matter and the accused could raise these issues during the ongoing trial before the lower court at Pathankot in Punjab.

While one of the accused had sought “de-novo (fresh) investigation” in the matter claiming that probe conducted by the state police’s crime branch was “motivated”, the two other accused had moved the apex court seeking a direction that the probe be transferred to an independent agency.

“According to us, this matter does not require de-novo investigation. Whatever are the infirmities, you can try to take advantage of them in the trial,” the bench said.

Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the two accused Vishal Jangotra and his father Sanji Ram, told the bench that there were “two versions” in chargesheet against them.

“The petitioners here are father and son. It is improbable that a father will call his son from Meerut, where he (son) is giving his examination, to commit such crime,” Kumar said, adding that “it is improbable in Indian context that father and son will do this”.

He also argued that police officers were also arrayed as accused in the case.

However, the bench said, “Your prayer is for transfer of investigation. We are declining that prayer”.

The lawyer appearing for the other accused claimed before the apex court that two officers of the special investigation team, which has probed the matter, were themselves facing criminal charges of custodial murder and under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

He claimed that a “motivated investigation” was conducted in the matter and witnesses were being “coerced”.

“Why are you asking for a de-novo investigation?” the bench asked.

Responding to the query, the lawyer argued that from the chargesheet filed in the case, it was established that the investigation was “botched up”.

When he referred to the statements given by some of the witnesses in the case, the bench observed, “We are alive to that but that is not a matter which entitles you to seek fresh investigation”.

The bench also sought to know about the number of witnesses examined in the case by the trial court.

The counsel said 80 prosecution witnesses were already examined in the matter.

“We have gone through the writ petition (filed by one of the accused) and we see no reason to interfere,” the apex court said and told the counsel that he could raise these issues before the lower court during the trial.

On May 7, the apex court had vacated the stay on trial of the Kathua gangrape and murder case and transferred it to Pathankot in Punjab.

It had directed that the trial be held in-camera, be fast-tracked and conducted on a day-to-day basis to avoid any delay.

It would be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Ranbir Penal Code, which is applicable in Jammu and Kashmir. NEW DELHI: The Jammu and Kashmir government on Friday opposed in the Supreme Court a plea filed by a serving senior IPS officer who had raised the issue of appointment of Dilbag Singh as the acting director general of police (DGP) of the state.

IPS officer SK Mishra had moved the apex court against the May 16 judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir high court which had dismissed his petition. He had alleged that he was “illegally superseded” by former DGP SP Vaid, who was junior to him.

Vaid, who was the DGP of Jammu and Kashmir, was replaced by acting DGP Dilbag Singh.

Mishra’s plea came up for hearing before a bench of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice AM Khanwilkar.

The counsel representing Mishra told the bench that there was “gross violation” of the apex court’s earlier verdict in appointment of Singh, as the top court had said that no police officer should be appointed as the acting DGP by the states and union territories.

He said that Vaid was asked to leave from the post of DGP and the state has appointed an officer as police chief on an “ad hoc basis”.

Advocate Shoeb Alam, appearing for Jammu and Kashmir, opposed the plea and said the issue of temporary arrangement of appointing Singh as acting DGP of the state was dealt with by another bench of the top court headed by then the Chief Justice, Dipak Misra.

Alam said on September 20, the top court had said the acting DGP will continue in office till the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) takes a decision in the matter.

The top court had last month asked the UPSC to take a decision within four weeks on the suitability of senior police officers, who could be appointed as the police chief in the state.

During the hearing, the bench said that the matter should be tagged with the case which was already being heard by the another bench.

When Mishra’s counsel told the court that notice should be issued on his plea, the bench said, “You can persuade that bench to issue notice”.