Court can’t be helpless spectator in faulty probe

As per the case, Thanikachalam, a social activist, had initiated legal action since 2009 against encroachers who had occupied two branch channels to an extent of nine acres in Ambur. But since the encroachments were not removed despite court directions, he moved a contempt of court plea. In response, the Vellore Collector had conceded to 19 encroachments and that it would be removed by November 14, 2014.

Agitated over this, the encroachers liquidated Thanikachalam by brutally attacking him during the night hours of November 11, 2014 and killed him.

Thereafter, based on a complaint from Thanikachalam’s brother, a FIR was registered against seven named accused persons for murder. But the final report turned out to have just one accused person and that too a history-sheeter and proceedings against the remaining persons dropped leading to the plea seeking a transfer of investigation.

However, Justice Anand Venkatesh while observing in his order that the Court of law cannot reduce itself to be resigned and became a helpless spectator, on the face of a faulty investigation, said, “The very aim of investigation is to find out the truth. A trial encompasses investigation, enquiry, trial etc., without a fair investigation; there can never be a fair trial. Article 21 of the Constitution of India embraces both the life and liberty of an accused person as well as the interest of the victim. The power of the constitutional Court to direct further investigation or reinvestigation is a dynamic component of its jurisdiction to exercise judicial review.”