IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Jay Sengupta

CRR 3291 of 2024

XXX

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the petitioner : Mr. Tarun Jyoti Tewari,

Ms. Kausiki Bose,

Mr. Dipankar Bhakta.

.....Advocates

For the State : Mr. Anand Keshari,

Ms. Suchismita Dutta.

.....Advocates

For the Opposite Party

nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. Sabir Ahmed,

Mr. Shraman Sarkar,

Mr. Dhiman Banerjee.

.....Advocates

Heard lastly on : 31.01.2026

Judgment on : 12.03.2026

2

Jay Sengupta, J:

1. This is a revisional application, inter alia, praying for further

investigation or de novo investigation into Hariharpara P.S. Case No.

36/2024 dated 27.01.2024 under Sections 363/302/34 of the IPC and 4 and

6 of the POCSO Act corresponding to C Special Case No. 31 of 2024 pending

before the Learned Special Court, POCSO Act, Berhampore, Murshidabad.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted as

follows. The 13-year-old daughter of the petitioner went missing on

22.01.2024 at around 8 PM. Despite all efforts to find her, she could not be

located, compelling her to lodge a complaint on 24.01.2024, upon which

Hariharpara Police Station Case No. 35/2024 was registered. Shockingly, on

27.01.2024 at around 1 PM, her daughter's dead body was discovered in a

field in a decomposed condition with severe injuries, and her mobile phone

was missing. A second FIR, being Hariharpara P.S. Case No. 36/2024, was

then registered for offences under Sections 363/302/34 of the IPC. After her

body was sent for postmortem to Murshidabad Medical College & Hospital, it

was found that several injuries were not mentioned in the report, prompting

her to approach this Court through WPA 3364 of 2024. This Court was

pleased to direct a fresh postmortem at SSKM Hospital, Kolkata, and further

directed the police to add the relevant POCSO sections, which the police had

failed to include despite clear evidence of sexual assault. Subsequently after

the order of this High Court it was added. Even after the SSKM report, the

investigation remained superficial, and though a chargesheet (C.S. No.

173/2024 dated 05.04.2024) was filed, it was evidently the product of a

3

negligent and biased inquiry. Throughout the investigation, the petitioner

and her family have faced continuous pressure from the acc used persons

and their associates. On 18.07.2024, the petitioner had to lodge a complaint

against the Learned Public Prosecutor, who attempted to coerce her into

withdrawing the case with threats and monetary inducements. The police

have failed to recover her daughter's mobile phone, did not identify the place

of occurrence, ignored crucial call records and tower locations, and shielded

politically influential persons, including the father of the main accused and

the local MLA whom she had specifically name d in her statement under

Section 164 Cr.P.C. Given the political influence, intimidation, and the

deliberate lapses in investigation, it has become clear to the petitioner that a

fair and impartial probe cannot be expected from the local police. The

chargesheet is incomplete and compromised, and even her plea for

reinvestigation was rejected by the Learned Trial Court on the ground that

such relief can only be sought before this Court. Therefore, the petitioner was

constrained to seek the intervention of this Court to set aside the defective

chargesheet and direct a fresh, independent investigation by the CBI so that

justice for her daughter may finally be secured. The daughter of the

petitioner had a mobile phone with her having number 8609198136 and the

same was not recovered by the Police authority. There are several lacunas in

the investigation. The same are being pointed as follows. a) Mobile phone of

the victim has not been recovered; b) In chargesheet at Item No.21 police has

mentioned about 2 phone numbers but owners of those has not been made

an -accused/witness; c) Place of occurrence is still not identified; d) The main

4

accused was shown as juvenile without any proper medical document

and/or ossification test; e) The father of the main accused is in custody, but

he was not arrested by the police initially inspite of knowing everything, the

petitioner went to the office of the Superintendent of Police and as per her

information he was arrested but strangely police did not take him in police

custody for interrogation. From this the intention and action of the police is

clear; f) Father of the main accused i.e., Rintu Khan @Kalu is booth

president of TMC and close aide of the local MLA. He is very close to Ex Zila

Sabhadhipati who is present Purta Karmadhakya of the District and for his

political connection, Police is trying to save that accused; g) Police has phone

numbers of the victim, the accused persons, local political leaders and easily

they could get the real picture by using tower dumping technology but the

same was not used and strangely CDR were not scrutinized properly; h) It is

the specific information of the petitioner that phone number of her daughter

was switched off around 8.15PM, the police could easily find out the tower

location but they did not; i) In her statement recorded under section 164

Cr.P.C she had specifically named a few persons including local MLA but no

step was taken against them and they have not been made accused and/or

witness even and it shows that the whole investigation is fully compromised;

j) The police authority, the Public Prosecutor and other persons are creating

pressure on the petitioner so that the case can be compromised. They are

creating pressure on her Learned Lawyer who is representing her in the trial

court; k) The purpose of the investigation is to instill confidence amongst the

people but here the sole purpose of the investigation is to compromise the

5

investigation and save the accused. The accused are politically connected

and works as voting machinery for the TMC at their locality. Hence the police

is not taking any step; l) The Local MLA should have been arrested after her

statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C but police did not question him and did

not bother to see his call details, tower location etc. WPA (P) 130 of 2022 the

Court on its own motion in regarding: The brutal incident of Bogtui Village,

Rampurhat, Birbhum on 25.03.2022. In this judgment Hon'ble High Court at

Calcutta was pleased to discuss about several cases including Rubabbuddin

Sheikh vs State of Gujarat & Others reported in AIR 2010 SC 3175, where

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India clearly held there that even after filling,

chargesheet the Court can direct to handover investigation to the CBI. In

WPA (P) 157 of 2022 (Popularly known as Hanskhali Rape Case) this Hon'ble

High Court was pleased to transfer the investigation to CBI after discussing

several cases. Son of one influential political of ruling party was involved

there. [(2021) 15 SCC 777]. It clearly speaks about the circumstances where

investigation can be given to CBI even after filling chargesheet by local police.

It is respectfully submitted, on behalf of the petitioner, that the investigation

into the horrific death of her 13-year-old daughter has been marred by

glaring lapses, omissions, and a disturbing pattern of bias that has

completely eroded the petitioner's faith in the local police. The victim's mobile

phone an essential piece of evidence was never recovered; phone numbers

cited in the chargesheet were neither examined nor their owners made

witnesses; and the very place of occurrence remains unidentified. The main

accused was casually shown as a juvenile without any medical basis, while

6

his father, a politically influential figure closely connected with ruling party

leaders, was initially spared arrest and later not taken into police custody for

interrogation, indicating clear protection. Despite being in possession of all

relevant phone numbers, the police did not conduct tower-dump analysis,

did not properly examine CDRs, and did not trace the victim's last known

location, even though her phone was switched off shortly after she went

missing. Persons specifically named by the petitioner in her Section 164

Cr.P.C. statement including the local MLA-were neither questioned nor

arrayed as accused or witnesses. Instead, the petitioner and even her learned

counsel have been subjected to persistent pressure aimed at compelling a

compromise. The cumulative conduct of the police reveals an investigation

that has failed the victim and her grieving mother at every stage. In these

circumstances, it is humbly urged that only a Court -monitored CBI

investigation can bring out the truth that the deceased child can no longer

narrate, and ensure that justice is neither delayed nor denied.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted as

follows. The instant case was initially started as Hariharpara Police Station

Case No. 36 of 2024 dated 27.01.2024 under section 363/302/34 of the

Indian Penal Code and thereafter Charge-Sheet was submitted under section

363/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4/6 of the Protection of

Children against Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The petitioner/ defacto

complainant lodged the 1

st

written complaint being Hariharpara Police

Station Case no. 35 of 2024 dated 24.01.2024 under sections 363/365 of

Indian Penal Code against Roni Khan (Opposite party no. 2). It appears from

7

the Case Diary that the investigating agency recorded the statements of the

relatives under sections 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1983. [Page-

10, Page-13, Page-37, Page-39, Page-65]. Statements of the mother of the

Victim Girl (Y) the father and the brother of the victim girl were all recorded

under section 164 of the Code. Statement of the aunt of the victim girl was

also recorded under section 164 of the Code. The first Post Mortem of the

victim Girl took place on 28.01.2024 at around 1.40 pm and the doctor

found 5 wounds all over the body of the victim. The opinio n of the Post

Mortem Doctor was that death was due to effects of strangulation by ligature

as noted above-antemortem and homicidal in nature. It appears from the

materials placed on record that the petitioner preferred an application for

Writ before this Court and same was numbered as WPA 3364 OF 2024. The

said application being WPA 3364 of 2024 was heard by this Court at length

and by order dated February 9, 2024, His Lordship directed the investigative

agency to conduct a 2

nd

post-mortem examination after exhumation of the

victim's dead body. It transpires from the case diary that as per the direction

passed by this Court in WPA 3364 of 2024, the second post mortem was

conducted upon the victim girl on 17.02.2024 and the same was video

graphed by the Investigating Officer, Tanmoy Bhakta, Sub -Inspector of

Police. The opinion of the doctor in the second post mortem report was that

death was due to the effects antemortem strangulation, homicidal in nature.

On 4th April 2024, Superintendent of Police, Murshidabad PD send a mail to

the Inspector-in-Charge, Hariharpara Police Station and directed the

investigating officer to submit Charge Sheet under section s

8

376(3)/302/363/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 4/6 of Protection of

Children From Sexual Offences Act against the main accused Roni Khan and

Charge Sheet under section 302/363/34 of the Indian Penal Code against

Rashida and Rintu Khan with a proviso to submit Supplementary Charge

Sheet on receipt of the FSL report and arrest of the absconding persons. The

Writ Application preferred by the petitioner/ defacto complainant before this

Court being WPA 3364 of 2024 was finally disposed of by order dated

07.03.2024. It is pertinent to mention herein that before disposing of the

same, the Court directed that "Further investigation to be held under the

supervision of Superintendent of Police, Murshidabad in order to conclude

the investigation as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law." It

appears from the case diary that after investigation, the Investigating agency

submitted Charge-Sheet in connection to the instant case vide Charge Sheet

no. 173 of 2023 dated 05.04.2024 for the commission of offence punishable

under section 363/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against Opposite

Party no. 4 i.e., Rashida Khan and Opposite party no. 3 Rintu Khan alias

Kalu. The Investigating Agency submitted Charge Sheet on the same date

against Opposite party no. 2 i.e., Rintu Khan for the offence punishable

under sections 363/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in addition to

section 4/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. It is apposite

to mention herein that the Investigating Officer of this instant case and 39

Charge Sheeted witnesses are proposed to be examined with a prayer to

submit a Supplementary Charge Sheet after receiving the Chemical

Examination Report from FSL, Kolkata and authenticated copy of CDR in

9

this case. It appears that the Investigating Officer had made a prayer for

authenticated copies of CDR and CAF before the Nodal Officer, along with the

certificates under section 65B of Evidence Act dated 1.1.2024 to 27.01.2024.

The investigating agency made a seizure list dated 26.04.2024 which

contained, authenticated copy of SDR, CDR and CAF 7872420120,

authenticated copy of CAF 7479037872 and 9609270831 and certified copy

of 860919835. It appears from the Supplementary Case Diary No.1 that the

investigating agency collected the Customer Application Form of

Accused/opposite party no. 2 i.e., Roni Khan from the office of Nodal Office,

Reliance, JIO and it transpires that his phone no, are 78724 220120,

9609270831 and 7479037872. As per the records of this instant case, the

Nodal Officer certified about the number being 8609198135 (mother of the

victim girl) and the call details records available, the date on which the victim

girl had gone missing, she was contacted by the accused Roni Khan seven (7)

times at a row and the last call as per the CDR was at 8.15 p.m. It appears

that investigating agency submitted the Supplementary Charge Sheet no. 1

being Charge Sheet no. 447 of 2024 dated 31.07.2024 for the commission of

offence punishable under section 363/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 against Opposite Party no. 4 i.e., Rashida Khan and Opposite party no.

3 Rintu Khan alias Kalu. The Investigating Agency submitted Charge Sheet

on the same date against Opposite party no. 2 i.e., Rintu Khan for the

offence punishable under sections 363/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 in addition to section 4/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act. It is opposite to mention herein that the Investigating Officer of

10

this instant case and 45 Charge Sheeted witnesses are proposed to be

examined with a prayer to submit a Supplementary Charge Sheet after

receiving the Chemical Examination Report from FSL. It appears from the

Supplementary Case Diary No. 2 that the Investigating Officer of the

concerned Police Station prayed before the Director of State Forensic Science

Laboratory, Government of West Bengal on 07.08.2024 for providing the

Chemical Examination Report in connection to the instant case. T hat on

09.08.2024, the State Forensic Science Laboratory sent the chemical report

in connection to this instant case. Investigating agency submitted the

Supplementary chargesheet no. 1 being chargesheet no. 499 of 2024 dated

30.08.2024 for the commission o f offence punishable under section

363/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against Opposite Party no. 4 i.e.,

Rashida Khan and Opposite party no. 3 Rintu Khan alias Kalu. The

Investigating Agency submitted Charge Sheet on the same date against

Opposite party no. 2 i.e., Rintu Khan for the offence punishable under

sections 363/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in addition to section

4/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. It is apposite to

mention herein that the Investigating Officer of this instant case and 46

chargesheeted witnesses are proposed to be examined with a prayer to

submit another Supplementary Charge Sheet after receiving the rest of the

Chemical Examination Report from the SFSL. It appears from the order

dated 26.04.2024, for the physical production of accused Roni Khan on

06.05.2024, but due to some technical issues, the accused opposite parties

was produced physically before the Special Judge (POCSO) Court,

11

Berhampore, Murshidabad in C. Special 31 of 2024 on 15.06.2024. Mental

Assessment of CCL Roni Khan on 15.04.2024. It is pertinent to menti on

herein that out of 45 chargesheeted witnesses only two witnesses have been

examined and the next date is fixed on 25.11.2025 for evidence. On

18.07.2024, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the District

Magistrate, Berhampore, and Murshidabad against the Learned Public

Prosecutor of Berhampore Court, alleging that he had requested the defacto

complainant to withdraw the case and offered her money. He ha d also

threatened her. In the said complaint, the defacto complainant alleged that

the accused persons knew that panel of Public Prosecutors are arranged in

such a manner that might facilitate the case.

4. Learned counsel representing the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 has

submitted as follows. The right of further investigation of complaint flows

from Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The essential

ingredients of this Section are to find the truth and do substantial justice.

From perusal of the documents pertaining to the present case it is found that

statement of the witnesses were recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under

Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded on 04.03.2024.

Chargesheet has been filed in the present case on 05.04.2024. From perusal

of the chargesheet it is reflected that the investigating agency at the time of

filing of the chargesheet has duly considered the statements made under

Section 164 of the Code. After considering the statements, the investigating

authority has filed the chargesheet. On 16.05.2024, Learned Trial Court was

pleased to take cognisance of the chargesheet. It is further submitted that

12

aggrieved by the investigation, the petitioner has filed a writ application

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being WPA 3364 of 2024. The

said writ application was heard and disposed by this Court on 07.03.2024.

The Court has observed that the post mortem report as done pursuant to

order passed by the Court was in consonance with the inquest report. It was

further recorded that pursuant to direction of the Court the Investigating

Officer has added Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act to the array of charges.

These recordings unambiguously show that the Court was satisfied with the

investigating. This Court in the said order has further directed as follows: -

"However, the Investigating Officer shall continue further investigation of the

case under the supervision of the Superintendant of Police, Murshidabad

Police District and conclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible

and in accordance with law." Therefore, it is submitted that the investigation

in connection with the present case has taken place as per direction of this

Court under the supervision of Superintendent of Police, Murshidabad

District and accordingly chargesheet has been filed. On 12.07.2024, the

petitioner has appeared and filed application for re-investigation with sole

intention to delay the proceeding. It is settled principle of law that Trial Court

has no jurisdiction to direct any prayer for re-investigation as the said

jurisdiction vested only High Courts and Supreme Court. It compliance of the

solemn order of the High Court the learned Trial Court in CRM(DB)

1582/2024 for expeditious hearing of Trial, the learned Court framed charge

against the accused persons on 16.07.2024 and date was fixed for evidence

where the petitioner remained silent. The opposite parties no. 2 to 4 being

13

accused persons, in the present case are languishing in custody.

Chargesheet in connection with the present case has been filed in the

present on 05.04.2024. Several years have passed after filing of chargesheet.

The opposite parties no. 2 to 4 are still behind the bar without Trial. The

petitioner in his application has not made out any new document and/or

evidence which warrants an order of further investigation. Mere perusal of

evidence collected during examination already on record will create a never

ending loop of perusing the same documents again and again unless the

petitioner get his targeted persons behind the bars. The said loop will further

violate the rights of present accused persons to obtain speedy trial. The

petitioner being dissatisfied with the mode and manner of investigation has

previously filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The same has resulted in direction of a second post mortem report and

addition of certain grievous penal sections. Section 173(8) provides for

further investigation during trial. It is settled principle of law that fishing and

roving enquiry cannot be permitted under the guise of further investigation.

Reliance is placed on K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi and Others, reported in 2024

SCC Online SC 2463. Therefore, the main grievance of the petitioner can be

redressed by invoking Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at

appropriate stage, but the same in no way warrants further investigation as

further investigation will be an abuse of process of law and will be in

violation of the fundamental rights of the opposite parties guaranteed under

the Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

14

5. I heard the learned counsels for the parties, perused the case dairy,

the applications, the affidavits and the written notes of submissions.

6. This is a gruesome case of kidnapping, rape and mur der of a minor

girl. The 13 year old daughter of the petitioner went missing on 22.01.2024

at about 8.00 p.m.. A complaint was filed on 24.01.2024 as she could not be

found in respect of search. Accordingly, Hariharpara Police Station Case No.

35/2024 was registered. On 27.01.2024, at about 1.00 p.m. the minor girl’s

dead body was discovered in a field in a decomposed condition with severe

injuries, and her mobile phone was missing. A comprehensive FIR, being

Hariharpara P.S. Case No. 36/2024, was then registered for offences under

Sections 363/302/34 of the IPC. Her body was sent for postmortem to

Murshidabad Medical College & Hospital, it was found that several injuries

were not mentioned in the report, the petitioner was constrained to approach

this Court through WPA 3364 of 2024. This Court was pleased to direct a

fresh postmortem at SSKM Hospital, Kolkata, and further directed the police

to add the relevant POCSO sections, which the police had failed to include

despite clear evidence of sexual assault.

7. It has been alleged that the Charge Sheet No. 173 of 2024 , dated

05.04.2024 that was filed, was evidently the product of a negligent and

biased inquiry. In the meantime, the petitioner had lodged a complaint

against the Learned Public Prosecutor before the Trial Court attempted to

coerce the mother of the victim in withdrawing the case with threats and

monetary inducements. The police purportedly failed to recover the

daughter's mobile phone, did not identify the place of occurrence, ignored

15

crucial call records and tower locations, and shielded politically influential

persons, including the father of the main accused and the local MLA whom

she had specifically named in her statement before the Learned Magistrate. It

has been further alleged that considering the political influence, indicative

and deliberate lapses, it is clear that the petitioner would not get a fair and

impartial probe from the local police. The police mentioned about two phone

numbers, but apparently did not specify to whom these belonged. The prime

accused was allegedly shown as juvenile without proper documents. The

police allegedly hesitated to arrest the father of the main accused as he was a

post holder of the local political party and close aide of the local MLA. Only a

CDR analysis was done even not properly, but the help of tower dumping

technology was not taken.

8. It appears that by an order dated 07.03.2024 passed by directing that

the Investigating Officer would continue the investigation, but under the

supervision of the Superintendent of Police. Charges were framed thereafter.

9. It is the contention of the added Opposite Parties that this is only a

ploy to keep the accused in custody for an indefinite period. There could be

no further investigation or re-investigation directed after commencement of

the trial by an order of framing a charge sheet.

10. The State, on the other hand, has contended that it had done its duty

in conducting the investigation in the best manner possible. Tower dumping

technology does not always give the exact picture of how close an accused

16

would be to the victim. However, call records are there which implicate the

principle accused.

11. In the case of Anant Thanur Karmuse vs State of Maharashtra, (2023)

5 SCC 802, the Hon’ble Apex Court has clarified that if the situation

demands further investigation or re-investigation the same can be directed

by a Constitutional Court even after the trial begins.

12. Quite often, an addition of an accused during trial is not a substitute

for a full fledged further investigation by the police, whether before or after

the commencement of trial.

13. The petitioner has alleged that the concerned MLA was present there at

the time of post-mortem examination. This is very exceptional indeed. The

issue was required to be explored further by the Investigating Agency.

14. The above fact has to be read in the context of the petitioner’s claim

that the father of the principal accused is a local leader of the ruling political

dispensation and of her allegations made against the Public Prosecutor of

requesting her to withdraw the case and of threatening her.

15. Merely because tower dumping technology may not be , say, meter or

yard specific or, for that matter, absolutely foolproof, it does not mean that

the same need not be taken recourse of, once CDR reports are available.

16. Moreover, there is no explanation regarding the lost phone of the

victim and about the efforts to retrieve the same.

17

17. The petitioner has also referred to some other phone numbers

mentioned, but not properly worked out.

18. This Court, thus, finds that there were some very serious lacuna in the

investigation made thus far and the issues could have been delved into by

the Investigating Agency better and deeper in a case of such gruesome

nature, that too with allegations of political clout of the family of the accused.

19. Such inchoate and half-hearted investigation goes to the root of the

matter and could severely prejudice the cause of justice. It does not at all

inspire confidence.

20. Added to this, is the issue of alleged political influence of the accused.

In such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the Investigating Agency to

have gone all out to find out all the evidence available and not leave out

important leads or aspects. After all, justice must not only be done, but must

also be seen to be done.

21. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I direct the formation

of a SIT (Special Investigation Team) comprising of 5 members from amongst

the State Police to be headed by Dr. Pranav Kumar, a senior IPS Officer for

conducting further investigation in the present case in accordance with law

and at the earliest and to file further report/s before the Learned Trial Court.

The other members of the SIT shall be chosen by Dr. Kumar. The SIT shall

report to the Learned Trial Court. The Learned Trial Court shall resume the

trial of the case soon after receiving the further report in final form to be

18

submitted by the SIT and completing all formalities like supply of copies and

altering/adding to the charges, if required.

22. With these observations and directions, this application is disposed of.

23. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to

the parties, upon completion of requisite formalities.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)