“Half-Hearted Investigation Amid Allegations of Political Influence”: Calcutta HC Orders SIT Probe in Minor Rape-Murder Case

The Calcutta High Court has directed the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct further investigation into the kidnapping, rape and murder of a 13-year-old girl in Murshidabad district, observing that the investigation carried out by the local police suffered from serious lacunae that undermined confidence in the probe.

Justice Jay Sengupta, while hearing a criminal revisional application filed by the victim’s mother, held that the nature of the investigation so far appeared incomplete and lacking in depth in a case involving grave offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The Court ordered the formation of a five-member SIT drawn from the state police and to be headed by senior IPS officer Dr. Pranav Kumar, directing it to carry out further investigation and submit its report before the trial court at the earliest.

The Court further directed that the trial court would resume proceedings after receiving the further report and completing procedural requirements such as supply of documents and alteration or addition of charges, if required.

The case arose from a petition filed by the mother of a 13-year-old girl who had gone missing from her home on 22.01.2024.

Despite extensive search efforts, the child could not be located, prompting the family to lodge a missing complaint on 24.01.2024.

A few days later, on January 27, the decomposed body of the minor girl was discovered in a field with severe injuries. Following the discovery of the body, a second FIR was registered at Hariharpara Police Station under Sections 363, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The victim’s body was initially sent for post-mortem examination at Murshidabad Medical College and Hospital.

However, the petitioner alleged that several injuries had not been properly recorded in the post-mortem report.

She approached the High Court earlier through a writ petition, following which the Court directed that the body be exhumed and subjected to a second post-mortem examination at SSKM Hospital in Kolkata.

The Court had also directed the investigating agency to add relevant provisions of the POCSO Act, which had initially not been invoked despite allegations of sexual assault.

According to the petitioner, the subsequent investigation conducted by the police remained superficial and compromised.

She alleged that despite the seriousness of the allegations, the police failed to recover the victim’s mobile phone, identify the exact place of occurrence, or properly examine call detail records and tower location data that could have shed light on the events leading to the girl’s death.

The petitioner further alleged that several persons with political influence were deliberately shielded during the investigation.

In particular, she claimed that the father of the principal accused had close connections with local political leaders and that the local MLA, whose name had been mentioned in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was neither questioned nor included as an accused or witness during the investigation.

Additional allegations were made that the main accused had been shown as a juvenile without proper medical examination or ossification test.

The petitioner also complained that she and her family had been subjected to intimidation and pressure to withdraw the case.

In a complaint lodged before the District Magistrate, she alleged that even the public prosecutor had attempted to persuade her to withdraw the case in exchange for money and had threatened her.

On behalf of the State, it was contended that the police had conducted the investigation in accordance with law and had already submitted a charge sheet against the accused persons under the relevant provisions of the IPC and the POCSO Act.

The State submitted that witness statements had been recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that call detail records had been collected.

It was also argued that supplementary charge sheets had been filed and that the trial had already commenced, with charges framed and witnesses examined.

Counsel appearing for the accused persons also opposed the plea for reinvestigation, arguing that such a request was intended to delay the trial.

It was contended that once the trial had commenced, further investigation should not ordinarily be ordered and that the petitioner could seek appropriate remedies during trial under provisions such as Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if new evidence emerged.

After considering the rival submissions and examining the case records, the Court observed that the allegations raised by the petitioner revealed significant gaps in the investigation.

The Court noted that the victim’s mobile phone had not been recovered and that certain phone numbers referred to in the investigation had not been adequately examined. It also observed that the investigating agency had not sufficiently explored certain leads, including allegations regarding the presence of politically influential individuals during key stages of the investigation.

It was further noted that the Top Court had clarified in Anant Thanur Karmuse v. State of Maharashtra that constitutional courts may direct further investigation or reinvestigation when circumstances warrant such intervention, even after the commencement of trial.

The Court concluded that the investigation conducted so far appeared “inchoate and half-hearted,” and that such shortcomings could seriously prejudice the cause of justice. It was added that in cases where allegations of political influence arise, it becomes even more necessary for the investigating agency to ensure that all possible evidence and leads are thoroughly explored so that the investigation inspires public confidence.

Accordingly, the Court directed the constitution of a Special Investigation Team consisting of five members from the state police, headed by senior IPS officer Dr. Pranav Kumar.

The SIT was tasked with conducting further investigation and submitting its report before the trial court.

The Court directed that the trial court would resume the trial after the SIT submits its report and after necessary procedural steps are completed.

With these directions, the criminal revisional application was disposed of.

Case Title: XXX v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Bench: Justice Jay Sengupta

Date of Judgment: 12.03.2026