The Supreme Court, on September 30, 2024, set aside the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court’s order that had directed further investigation in a 2013 murder case. The case, which centres on the murder of one Kumar, had led to an FIR being filed in 2013, followed by a series of legal battles and petitions. The Supreme Court bench presided over by Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, ruled that the High Court’s direction for further investigation was unwarranted, highlighting the misuse of legal provisions and unnecessary delays in the judicial process.

The case revolves around the murder of Kumar, who was hacked to death on March 31, 2013, while walking with his companion, Padikasu (PW-1/complaint). An FIR was filed, accusing eight individuals, including the appellant, K. Vadivel, of being involved in the crime. The final report was filed on July 11, 2013, leading to a prolonged trial where several key witnesses, including PW-1, were examined.

During the trial, PW-1 turned hostile and later contradicted his initial statement, denying having witnessed the actual murder. The deceased’s wife, Shanthi (PW-2), who also testified, corroborated some aspects of the event but did not offer any new, material information that would warrant further investigation. Despite the trial nearing its conclusion, PW-2 filed an application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in 2019, seeking to summon additional witnesses, which was dismissed by both the trial court and the High Court.

In January 2020, PW-2 filed another application, this time under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., requesting further investigation, arguing that the original investigation had been incomplete. The High Court, without a detailed reasoning, allowed the petition and ordered further investigation. The trial court was directed to accept a supplementary chargesheet filed by the police following the further investigation, and to frame charges afresh and to proceed with the trial and to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible prompting the appellant to challenge the order before the Supreme Court.

The Bench took issue with the High Court’s cryptic order, which lacked any substantial legal reasoning or analysis of the case facts. The court reiterated that further investigation, while permissible under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., must be justified by the emergence of new facts or substantial evidence that was overlooked during the original investigation.

In this case, the court noted that the allegations raised by PW-2 in the application for further investigation were nearly identical to those in her earlier petition under Section 311, which had been dismissed. The court emphasized that ordering a further investigation at such a late stage in the trial, especially when no new evidence or material facts were presented, amounted to a misuse of legal procedures and could not be justified.

Justice Viswanathan, delivering the judgment, observed, "There must be some reasonable basis which should trigger the application for further investigation so that the court is able to arrive at a satisfaction that ends of justice require the ordering/permitting of further investigation." The court emphasised that the request for further investigation appeared to be a tactic to delay the trial rather than a genuine effort to bring new facts to light.

The judgment drew upon several key legal precedents, including Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat (2019) 17 SCC 1 and Pooja Pal vs. Union of India (2016) 3 SCC 135, both of which outlined the conditions under which further investigation can be permitted. The court pointed out that further investigation cannot be ordered for the purpose of filling gaps in the prosecution’s case or to correct a deficient investigation unless new, credible evidence emerges.

The court also referred to the decision in Ram Lal Narang vs. State (Delhi Administration)  (1979) 2 SCC 322, which held that further investigation may be warranted only if fresh material comes to light that was not available during the initial investigation. In this case, however, the court found no such material had been presented to justify further investigation.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order for further investigation was not legally sustainable, as it was based on previously dismissed arguments and did not introduce any new facts or evidence. The court set aside the High Court’s order and directed that the trial, which had already been significantly delayed, should be concluded within eight weeks.

The judgment further remarked on the need for courts to exercise caution when considering applications for further investigation, especially in cases where the trial has already progressed substantially. The court concluded by stating, "These misadventures directly 

impinge on the rule of law, because they add to the pendency and the consequential delay in the disposal of other cases which are crying for justice” echoing concerns about the misuse of legal provisions to delay justice.

Case Details - K.Vadivel v. K.Shanthi & Ors.(SLP. 4360/2022)

Judgement

Advocate for Appellant- Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Senior Advocate

Advocate for State- Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, A.A.G.

Advocate for Respondent 01.- Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Senior Advocate