Kusumavati Gowda Vs. The Government of Karnataka & Ors. – Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5763 of 2026) – 2026 INSC 1030 – September 21, 2026 – Sanjay Kumar, J. and Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Appellant and impugned order challenged
The appeal was prosecuted by the mother of the deceased victim after the demise of the original writ petitioner, challenging the final judgment and order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 3301 of 2024, whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation or an independent Special Investigation Team to conduct a de novo investigation or reinvestigation into the brutal rape and murder of their minor daughter. (paras 2, 23, 24)
Factual matrix
On 09.10.2012, the victim went missing on her way back from college near Mannasanka bus stop in Dharmasthala Village, and on the following morning, her half-naked body was found tied to a tree inside thick bushes with severe marks of strangulation and penetrative sexual assault. Although the local police subsequently arrested one person on 13.10.2012, public protests erupted alleging that three local influential persons were being shielded, prompting the state government to transfer the probe first to the Criminal Investigation Department and later to the Central Bureau of Investigation, yet both agencies concurred with the local police, giving a clean chit to the suspected trio and charge-sheeting the arrested individual alone. (paras 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15)
Other courts verdicts
By judgment dated 16.06.2023, the Sessions Court acquitted the accused of all charges, holding that there was no evidence connecting him to the crime, that his medical condition rendered him incapable of committing such an assault, and that crucial forensic evidence was ruined, thereby directing action against erring officials. Dismissing the subsequent writ petition and the criminal appeal against acquittal, the High Court held that while the acquittal logically demanded reinvestigation, medical and forensic evidence could not be improved and no useful purpose would be served since evidence missed at the golden hour was no longer available. (paras 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 46)
Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent
The appellant contended that the constitutional courts possess untrammelled powers under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct a de novo investigation when previous probes were demonstrably tainted, biased, and orchestrated to shield the real perpetrators, emphasising that biological evidence such as foreign hair strands on the victim’s clothes remained available for comparative DNA testing. Conversely, the respondent-authorities stood by the High Court’s reasoning, maintaining that after the culmination of a full-fledged trial, charge-sheet submissions under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the passage of over a decade, golden-hour clues were permanently lost, making a de novo inquiry an exercise in futility that could disrupt settled proceedings. (paras 13, 16, 23, 26, 46, 48, 50)
Ratio Decidendi
Fair, transparent, and judicious investigation is an indispensable part of the fundamental right to life and fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and where an investigation is tainted, biased, or conducted to help culprits escape the clutches of law, constitutional courts have an expansive power and duty under judicial review to order a de novo investigation by an independent agency or Special Investigation Team to prevent miscarriage of justice, which cannot be curtailed merely by commencement or conclusion of trial or passage of time, especially in heinous crimes where justice to the deceased victim cannot be compromised. (paras 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 59, 60)
Directions issued
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court order and directed that a de novo investigation be conducted in Crime No. 250/2012 by a newly constituted Special Investigation Team formed by the State of Karnataka, headed by a senior police officer and equipped with modern investigative technology. It strictly directed that no police officer associated with the earlier investigations by the Belthangady Police, CID, or CBI shall be part of this Special Investigation Team. Furthermore, the Court ordered that the acquitted individual Santhosh Rao shall not be subjected to further investigation or prosecution by virtue of Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC, clarified that no opinion was expressed on the role of any individual named by the family, and mandated that the fresh investigation be concluded and its police report filed before the concerned court within three months. (paras 61)
Important paragraphs
Only Constitutional courts can direct Denovo/Fresh Investigation beyond Section 173(8) CrPC on exceptional grounds
53. The Supreme Court in Neetu Kumar Nagaich (supra) held that normally when an investigation has been concluded and police report submitted under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is only further investigation that can be ordered under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code. But where the Constitutional Court is satisfied that the investigation has not been conducted in a proper and objective manner, fresh investigation with the help of an independent agency can be considered to secure the ends of justice so that truth is revealed. It held that the power to direct fresh investigation may be exercised if the court comes to the conclusion that the investigation has been done in a manner to help someone escape the clutches of the law. In such exceptional circumstances the court may, in order to prevent miscarriage of criminal justice, direct de novo investigation.
Fair Investigation is a Fundamental Right under Article 21
54. The Supreme Court held that a fair investigation is as much a part of a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution as a fair trial, without which the trial will naturally not be fair. Investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law. The investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in a tainted and biased manner. Where non-interference of the court would ultimately result in failure of justice, the court must interfere.
55. Relying upon the decision in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh (supra), the Supreme Court in Neetu Kumar Nagaich (supra) held that if deficiency in investigation or prosecution is visible or can be perceived by lifting the veil which try to hide the realities or covering the obvious deficiency, courts have to deal with the same with an iron hand appropriately within the framework of law. In order to ensure that the criminal prosecution is carried on without any deficiency, in appropriate cases this Court can even constitute Special Investigating Team and also give appropriate directions to the Central and State Governments and other authorities to give all required assistance to such specially constituted investigating team in order to book the real culprits and for effective conduct of the prosecution. And in exceptional circumstances the Court in order to prevent miscarriage of criminal justice and if considers necessary may direct for investigation de novo.
56. Reference was also made by the Supreme Court in Neetu Kumar Nagaich (supra) to the judgment in Pooja Pal (supra) wherein it has been held that a criminal offence is one against the society at large casting an onerous responsibility on the State, as the guardian and purveyor of human rights and protector of law to discharge its sacrosanct role responsibly and committedly, always accountable to the law-abiding citizenry for any lapse.
Appreciation of power of constitutional courts to direct reinvestigation
57. The power of the constitutional courts to direct further investigation or reinvestigation is a dynamic component of its jurisdiction to exercise judicial review, a basic feature of the Constitution and though has to be exercised with due care and caution and informed with self-imposed restraint, the plenitude and content thereof can neither be enervated nor moderated by any legislation.
58. The Supreme Court in Neetu Kumar Nagaich (supra) also relied upon the decision in Rattiram (supra) wherein it was held that the victim cannot be afforded to be treated as an alien or total stranger to the criminal trial and criminal jurisprudence with the passage of time has laid emphasis on victimology, which fundamentally is the perception of a trial from the viewpoint of criminal as well as the victim when judged in the social context.
Supreme Court came to the conclusion that biased, tainted and manipulating investigation happened and caused injustice to the victim
59. In a case where a minor girl of 17 years of age is brutally raped and murdered, the manner in which the investigation had progressed and the manner in which the various investigating agencies conducted the investigation and gathered and evaluated the evidence shocks the very conscience of the court. The person who was prosecuted was held to be incapable of committing the offence. Clearly the investigation has been conducted in a manner that causes injustice to the victim. The possibility of the real culprit(s) manipulating the investigation cannot be ruled out. Such lax and improper investigation gives premium to the Investigating Officers who failed to do their job correctly and diligently.
Irreparable Nature of Injustice Suffered by Victims of Heinous Crimes
60. Injustice to a person who was falsely charged can always be compensated, however injustice to the victim who was brutally raped and then murdered can never be compensated. Society would be failing in its duty if it does not provide justice to the victim of such a heinous crime by conducting a proper investigation and bringing the real culprits to the book.
61. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of in the following terms:
(i) impugned order dated 30.08.2024 in WP No. 3301 of 2024, in so far as it dismisses the Writ Petition filed by Sri Chandappa Gowda, is set aside and
(ii) a denovo investigation be carried out in Cr.No.250/2012 originally registered by the Belthangady Police as per the Complaint dated 09.10.2012 & First Information Report in Crime No.250/2012 dated 09.10.2012 and re-registered as FIR No.RC.2(S)/2014/CBI/SCB/CHENNAI dated 07.03.2014 by CBI, SCB Chennai; and
(iii) Respondent No. 1 State of Karnataka shall constitute a Special Investigation Team comprising efficient investigators, well conversant with the use of modern investigative technology, headed by a senior police officer of the State; and
(iv) no officer who was part of the investigation teams of the Belthangady Police Station, CID or CBI who had been associated with the earlier investigation shall be part of the Special Investigation Team; and
(v) Since, Santhosh Rao has already been tried and acquitted by the Sessions Court in the subject FIR, he enjoys the protection of Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 CrPC from being tried or prosecuted a second time, he shall not be subjected to further investigation or prosecution; and
(vi) nothing stated herein shall be construed as expressing an opinion, even prima facie, on the role of any individual including Mallik Jain, Deeraj Jain and Uday Jain. The Special Investigating Team shall conduct the investigation without being influenced by anything stated on merits in this order; and
(vii) fresh investigation shall be concluded within a period of three months and the police report shall be filed before the court concerned in accordance with law, whereafter the matter shall proceed in accordance with law.
62. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
Resources
Judgments Cited
Vinay Tyagi vs Irshad Ali @Deepak and Others (2013) 5 SCC 762 – Held that the power to direct fresh investigation, reinvestigation, or de novo investigation falls within the domain of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C or Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Popular Muthiah vs State (2006) 7 SCC 296 – Relied upon by the High Court to hold that medical and forensic evidence cannot be improved and evidence not collected at the golden hour is lost.
Neetu Kumar Nagaich v. State of Rajasthan (2020) 16 SCC 777 – Extensively examined the power of the Constitutional Court to direct a de novo investigation to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Admn. 1988 Supp SCC 482: 1988 SCC (Cri) 864 – Observed that fresh investigation with the help of an independent agency can be considered to secure the ends of justice.
Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 336 – Held that fair investigation is part of constitutional rights under Articles 20 and 21, and tainted investigations warrant de novo probes.
Ganeshbhai Jakshibhai Bharwad v. State of Gujarat 2009 SCC OnLine Guj 12130 – Noted that an independent agency chosen by the High Court makes a fresh investigation when courts interfere in tainted cases.
Bharati Tamang v. Union of India (2013) 15 SCC 578: (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 566 – Emphasized that courts can constitute a Special Investigation Team and direct a de novo investigation to unravel conspiracies and correct obvious deficiencies.
Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) 4 SCC 158: 2004 SCC (Cri) 999 – Ruled that courts have to deal with deficiencies in investigation or prosecution with an iron hand to ensure material facts are brought on record.
Pooja Pal v. Union of India (2016) 3 SCC 135: (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 743 – Noticed that directing reinvestigation is a dynamic component of judicial review to hold the State accountable for criminal offences against society.
Rattiram v. State of M.P. (2012) 4 SCC 516 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 481 – Postulated that criminal jurisprudence emphasizes victimology and the victim cannot be treated as an alien to the criminal trial.
Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana (2016) 4 SCC 160: (2016) 2 SCC (Cri) 259 – Held that commencement of trial and examination of some witnesses cannot be an absolute impediment for ordering fresh or de novo investigation.
Hasanbhai Valighai Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarath and Others AIR 2004 SC 2078 – Relied upon to assert that the Sessions Judge has the power to order further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.
Acts and Sections Involved
Constitution of India: Article 20(2), Article 21, Article 226, Article 227.
Code of Criminal Procedure: Section 173(2), Section 173(8), Section 178(3), Section 300, Section 319, Section 482.
Indian Penal Code: Section 201, Section 302, Section 376. Indian Evidence Act: Section 27.
Editor’s Note/Author’s Note
Does this judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court override the powers or rights that the law gives to the police or investigating authorities? No, it does not.
Before looking at the reasoning, let us use the following judgments to understand the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive (the police officials in this case) under the Constitution.
1. King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad (1944) L.R. 71 I.A. 203 (Privy Council) – (Affirmed by a 5-Judge Constitution Bench in State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak, AIR 1963 SC 447, and a 3-Judge Bench in State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha, (1980) 1 SCC 554)
“In India as has been shown there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities, and it would, as their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always, of course, subject to the right of the court to intervene in an appropriate case when the charge is preferred before it. The court’s functions begin when a charge is preferred before it and not until then. It has sometimes been thought that Section 561A has given increased powers to the court which it did not possess before that section was enacted. But this is not so. The section gives no new powers, it only provides that those which the court already inherently possesses shall be preserved and is inserted, as their Lordships think, lest it should be considered that the only powers the court possesses are those expressly conferred by the Criminal Procedure Code and that no inherent power had survived the passing of that Act”.
2. State of Bihar & Anr. v. J.A.C. Saldanha & Ors. (1980) 1 SCC 554 – Bench: 3-Judge Bench (V.R. Krishna Iyer, D.A. Desai, & A.D. Koshal, JJ.)
“25. There is a clear cut and well demarcated sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and crime punishment. Investigation of an offence is the field reserved for the executive through the police department the superintendence over which vests in the State Government. The executive is charged with a duty to keep vigilance over the law and order situation and each infraction of the law will direct its active attention into an investigation of the offence. The power of the police to investigate into a cognizable offence is ordinarily not subject to the control of the judiciary… The power of the police to investigate any cognizable offence is an unfettered statutory right and the function of the judiciary starts only when a charge-sheet is submitted by the police or when a complaint is preferred before the Magistrate and Magistrate is called upon to take cognizance of the offence”.
3. M.C. Abraham & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 758 – Bench: 3-Judge Bench (N. Santosh Hegde & B.P. Singh, JJ.)
“17. The principle, therefore, is well settled that it is for the investigating agency to submit a report to the Magistrate after full and complete investigation and that it is for the Magistrate to consider whether to accept the report or not. The Magistrate cannot compel the investigating agency to submit a report in a particular manner, nor can the Magistrate take away the discretion of the investigating agency to form an opinion on the basis of the evidence collected by it; for that will be encroaching on the field reserved for the investigating agency. The High Court, in our opinion, has also no power to compel the investigating agency to submit a report in a particular manner and the High Court also cannot compel the investigating agency to arrest an accused person against whom an investigation is proceeding”.
4. Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 542 – Bench: 2-Judge Bench (Altamas Kabir & Markandey Katju, JJ.)
“41. It is well settled that the power of the police to investigate any cognizable offence is a statutory right over which the court does not possess any supervisory control. The court has no power to stop the investigation into a cognizable offence nor has it the power to direct that a particular line of investigation should be adopted by the investigating officer. The investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the executive through the police department, superintendence over which vests in the State Government”.
5. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2021) 19 SCC 401 – Bench: 3-Judge Bench (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah, & Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.)
“Paragraph 57 (Core Conclusion / Principles):
57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khwaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge:
(i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;
(ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences and only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;
(iii) The power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly with circumspection, in the ‘rarest of rare cases’. (The rarest of rare cases standard in this context for quashing of FIRs does not mean that the Court can operate only in cases where death penalty would be awarded);
(iv) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
(v) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
(vi) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule…
60. The statutory power has been given to the police to investigate the cognizable offence, without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities, and it would be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping”.
My Reasoning
What actually Hon’ble Supreme Court meant in section 54 in this judgment was that though there are statutory rights which debars the courts to interfere in the investigation (please note that monitoring the investigation is not barred to the trial courts), but, during the ongoing investigation is being done in an unfair manner or there is a visible breach of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution (only by monitoring the investigation the courts may find our the unfairness of investigation hence there is no bar to monitor the investigation), the Constitutional courts has powers to interfere in the investigation inasmuch the Writ or orders may be passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court directly by invoking Article-32 (note: even any citizen may directly approach the Hon’ble S.C by invoking Article-32 if there is a breach of fundamental rights since Article 32 was drafted within the Chapter of Fundamental rights) and approach the Hon’ble High Courts under section 528 BNSS (previously section 482) for re investigation. But the powers of trial courts are limited to further investigation only and not to grant fresh or re-investigation since they are not constitutional courts or have any inherent powers.
Paragraph 54 is therefore distinguishing statutory and fundamental rights in a correct manner.
