Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 957 OF 2013

SUDIPTA LENKA        ...    PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF ODISHA  ORS.        ...  RESPONDENT (S)  

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. A young law student of Bangalore, who belongs to the  

State  of  Odisha,  has  filed  the  present  application  under  

Article  32  of  the  Constitution  highlighting  what  she  has  

perceived to be a serious infringement of the fundamental  

rights  guaranteed  by  Article  21  consequent  to  a  tragic  

incident  wherein  one  Itishree  Pradhan  was  set  ablaze  on  

27.10.2013  at  a  place  called  Tikiri  located  in  Rayagada  

District in the State of Odisha.  The unfortunate victim of the  

incident died on 01.11.2013.

1

Page 2

2. According  to  the  petitioner,  the  aforesaid  Itishree  

Pradhan (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) joined  

as  a Siksha Sahayika (contractual  government  teacher)  in  

the Tikiri Upper Primary School on 18.06.2011.  As she was  

facing difficulty in finding accommodation, one Netrananda  

Dandasena, (now an accused and hereinafter referred to as  

“the accused”), who was then serving as Sub Inspector of  

Schools  at  Tikiri,  offered  her  accommodation  in  his  own  

house.   It appears that the deceased was sexually harassed  

by the aforesaid accused which led to a complaint by the  

deceased  before  the  local  police  on  18.07.2013.   The  

petitioner alleges that no action on the said complaint was  

taken by the local police.  On 30.07.2013 the deceased had  

approached  the  State  Women  Commission  and  Odisha  

Human  Rights  Commission  for  intervention  but  the  said  

bodies did nothing more than to forward her petition to the  

Superintendent  of  Police,  Rayagada  for  necessary  action.  

According  to  the  petitioner,  on  31.07.2013,  the  deceased  

had  approached  the  Director  General  of  Police  and  on  

05.08.2013  she  had  approached  the  Superintendent  of  

Police,  Rayagada;  on  the  same  day  she  had  sent  a  2

Page 3

representation to the Chief Minister of the State.  It is also  

alleged that on the same date i.e. 05.08.2013 the deceased  

had filed a complaint before the Collector, Rayagada District.  

According  to  the  petitioner  all  the  aforesaid  approaches  

made by the deceased to different authorities did not yield  

any result.  In the meantime, emboldened by the lack of any  

action  by  any  authority,  some  family  members  of  the  

accused threatened the deceased to withdraw her complaint  

to the police.  The deceased retaliated by lodging another  

complaint with the police on 19.09.2013.  (date is disputed  

by the State)  The petitioner has further claimed that from  

05.08.2013  till  22.10.2013  no  steps  were  taken  by  the  

concerned  authorities  to  provide  the  deceased  with  any  

security;  no action was taken against the accused and no  

steps were taken to transfer the deceased from her place of  

posting  i.e.  Tikiri  to  another  location.   The  petitioner  has  

further  alleged that  on  27.10.2013  the  deceased  was  set  

ablaze and she was removed to the hospital with 90% burn  

injuries;  eventually,  the  deceased succumbed to  the  burn  

injuries sustained by her in a hospital at Vishakhapatnam on  

01.11.2013.   Referring  to  the  several  newspaper  reports  3

Page 4

published  with  regard  to  the  incident  in  question  the  

petitioner has alleged that perpetrators of the crime enjoyed  

political patronage and the accused had close proximity to a  

Member of Parliament and also a minister.  The petitioner  

has  stated  that  notwithstanding  the  several  criminal  acts  

committed, the accused was moving around freely; receiving  

his  salary  and  had  even  been  granted  a  promotion  in  

service.  Consequently, the petitioner has sought a direction  

for the transfer of the investigation of the case involving the  

death  of  Itishree  Pradhan  from  the  State  agency  to  the  

Central Bureau of Investigation and the monitoring of such  

investigation by this Court.   

3. The  writ  petition  filed  on  12.11.2013  has  been  

responded to by the State of Odisha by means of a counter  

affidavit dated 02.01.2014.  According to the State, on the  

basis of the complaint dated 18.7.2013 filed by the deceased  

against Netrananda Dandasena, Tikiri P.S. Case No. 60 dated  

18.07.2013 under Sections 354/409 of the Indian Penal Code  

was registered.  The State, in its counter affidavit, has set  

out  in  seriatim  the  action  taken  on  the  basis  of  the  

4

Page 5

complaints/representations  submitted  by  the  deceased  to  

different  bodies  and  authorities  of  the  State.   It  is  also  

submitted  that  the  complaints  lodged  by  the  deceased  

against the family members of the accused have been acted  

upon and Tikiri P.S. Case No. 62 dated 19.07.2013 and No.  

70  dated  16.08.2013  have  been  registered  against  the  

family members of the accused.  In the counter filed,  it has  

been further stated that in respect of the incident involving  

the death of Itishree Pradhan, Tikiri P.S. Case No. 92 dated  

28.10.2013 has been registered and Netrananda Dandasena  

was arrested in connection with the said case on 30.10.2013.  

According  to  the  State,  the  promotion  of  Netrananda  

Dandasena  was  pursuant  to  the  recommendations  of  the  

Departmental  Promotion  Committee  made  some  time  in  

December, 2012.  The dismissal of the Inspector-in-Charge  

of  Tikiri  Police  Station  and  an  Assistant  Sub  Inspector  

attached  to  the  said  police  station  from  service;  the  

dismissal of two officials of the Education Department posted  

at Rayagada and also the dismissal of accused Netrananda  

Dandasena from service by invoking proviso (b)  to  Article  

311  (2)  of  the  Constitution  has  also  been  highlighted  as  5

Page 6

incidents of consequential action taken by the State besides  

the payment of extra gratia of Rs. 10 lakhs to the parents of  

the deceased.   

4. Shri Suresh Chandra Tripathy, learned counsel for the  

petitioner  has  vehemently  urged  that  the  present  case  

demonstrates the lack of concern for the rights of a young  

woman  who  was  compelled  by  circumstances  to  accept  

employment at a place far away from her home.  She had  

bravely  resisted the attempts  of  the accused,  Netrananda  

Dandasena, to sexually exploit her and mustered up courage  

to formally complain against the accused.  Such complaints  

were lodged before the local police station and also made to  

the  district  police  officials  i.e.  Superintendent  of  Police,  

District Collector as well  as statutory bodies committed to  

protect human rights and her individual rights (State Human  

Rights  Commission  and  State  Women  Commission).   The  

deceased  had  even  approached  the  Director  General  of  

Police and finally she had approached the Chief Minister of  

the State.  Her repeated and frantic pleas failed to evoke  

requisite  response  from  any  of  the  aforesaid  authorities.  

6

Page 7

Despite the several complaints lodged by her the accused  

was  roaming  free.   It  is  the  inaction  on  the  part  of  the  

authorities that had emboldened the accused to commit the  

acts  resulting  in  her  death.   The  sequence  of  events  

following the death of Itishree Pradhan have been, according  

to the learned counsel, equally appalling.   Apart from some  

superficial and knee jerk actions like dismissing some lowly  

placed  employees  from  service  the  investigation  of  the  

criminal case has not proceeded meaningfully.  Though the  

accused,  Netrananda  Dandasena,  had  been  arrested  on  

30.10.2013 no explanation has been forthcoming as to why  

he could not be apprehended earlier.   The second person  

involved  in  the  incident  leading  to  the  death  of  Itishree  

Pradhan i.e. the person who had poured kerosene on her is  

still  at  large  and  his  identity  is  yet  to  be  ascertained.  

According to the learned counsel, all this is on account of the  

fact that the accused enjoys political patronage; he is close  

to an elected Member of Parliament.   It  is  also submitted  

that in her final dying declaration made in the hospital  at  

Vishakhapatnam, which was recorded by a local TV channel,  

and thereafter telecast, the deceased had named the Chief  7

Page 8

Minister of the State as being involved/responsible for the  

incident leading to her death.  All such facts are stated in the  

report of the Enquiry Committee of the National Commission  

of  Women  which  is  a  part  of  the  record  of  the  case.  

According to learned counsel, the present, therefore, is a fit  

case where the investigation should be transferred to the  

Central  Bureau of  Investigation and proceeded with under  

the close supervision of this Court.

5. In  reply,  Shri  L.  Nageswara  Rao,  learned  Additional  

Solicitor General who has appeared for the State of Odisha,  

has, at the outset, submitted that the deceased had made  

three dying  declarations.   The  first  dying  declaration  was  

recorded at 10.45 p.m. on 27.10.2013 by the Medical Officer  

of the Public Health Centre at Tikiri, the second was recorded  

at  1.05  a.m.  on  28.10.2013  in  the  District  Headquarter  

Hospital at Rayagada and the third on the same day before  

the  Tehsildar,  Rayagada.   The  aforesaid  three  dying  

declarations  are  to  the  same  effect,  namely,  that  the  

deceased  was  set  ablaze  by  a  person  whom she  did  not  

recognize and before doing so the person had asked her to  

8

Page 9

withdraw the case against accused Netrananda Dandasena,  

which  she  refused.   It  is  submitted  that  the  above  dying  

declarations make it clear that two persons are involved in  

the crime i.e. Netrananda Dandasena and another unknown  

person  who  had  actually  set  the  deceased  ablaze.   The  

learned  counsel  has  submitted  that  on  22.02.2014  

chargesheet  had  been  submitted  in  Tikiri  P.S.  Case  No.  

92/2013  against  Netrananda  Dandasena  under  Sections  

449/450/302/120-B  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  and  the  

investigation is being kept open to bring to book the other  

person  who  is  alleged  to  have  set  the  deceased  ablaze.  

Learned counsel has further submitted that on a conspectus  

of  the  facts  of  the  case,  the  persons  associated  with  the  

incident can be categorized in three groups – the first being  

persons who are actually involved in the crime; the second  

are the officials and bodies before whom complaints were  

filed by the deceased and the third is the person(s) who had  

allegedly  tried  to  protect  the  accused.   Insofar  as  the  

persons involved in the crime are concerned, according to  

the  learned  counsel,  Netrananda  Dandasena  has  already  

been chargesheeted and presently  he is  in  custody.   The  9

Page 10

investigation  is  being  kept  open  to  bring  to  book  the  

unidentified person who is stated to have set the deceased  

ablaze.  So far as the officials and functionaries of the State,  

at different levels,  who were approached by the deceased  

from time to time and who had allegedly not taken proper  

and prompt action, it  is  submitted by the learned counsel  

that the said aspect of the case not being relatable to the  

actual commission of the crime, cannot, in any case, be a  

subject  matter  of  a  reference  to  the  Central  Bureau  of  

Investigation.  At best, the aforesaid issue could be a matter  

of  administrative inquiry and consequential  action on that  

basis.   Insofar  as the issue of  political  or  other  influential  

persons  shielding  and  protecting  the  offender(s)  is  

concerned, Shri Rao has drawn the attention of the Court to  

the details of the investigation with regard to the allegations  

of  phone  calls  made  by  one  Shri  Jayaram  Pangi,  M.P.,  

Karaput Constituency to the deceased to withdraw her case  

against  the accused.  The attention of  the Court  has been  

drawn to the report of the CFSL, Hyderabad to which place  

the seized mobile of the deceased alongwith the Sim card(s)  

were sent.  The report, it is mentioned in the chargesheet, is  10

Page 11

in the negative.  Insofar as the alleged involvement of the  

Chief Minister is concerned, Shri Rao has drawn the attention  

of the Court to the facts found on investigation as recorded  

in the chargesheet which show that the video recording of  

the  statement  of  the  deceased made in  the  hospital  and  

telecast on 05.11.2013 being in Odiya was been sent to an  

Odiya Professor of  Ravenshaw University,  Cuttack and also  

to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhubaneswar for  

transcription of the exact version of the said statement.  On  

due  examination  and  analysis,  it  was  found  that  the  

deceased in her statement had stated that “SI YE” (meaning  

‘he’  in  Odiya),  amongst  others,  was  responsible  for  the  

incident.   It  is  stated  that  the  said  expression  has  been  

understood to be a reference to C.M. i.e. the Chief Minister.  

It is further submitted by Shri Rao that there is no material,  

whatsoever, to even remotely connect the Chief Minister to  

the  incident  except  the  fact  that  the  deceased  had  

submitted a written representation dated 05.08.2013 to the  

Chief  Minister  also.   Shri  Rao  has  contended  that  the  

chargesheet in the case having been filed and the matter  

being  before  the  Court  and  furthermore  the  investigation  11

Page 12

being kept open under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. to bring to  

book the other  culprit  there is  no reason why the matter  

should be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation  

which  would  virtually  amount  to  reopening  of  the  

investigation.   In  this  regard  Shri  Rao  has  relied  on  the  

judgment of this Court in Disha vs.  State of Gujarat and  

Others1 (para 21).

6. From the resume of  facts  stated above the following  

events  leading  to  and  surrounding  the  death  of  Itishree  

Pradhan would be significant to be taken note of.

(i) Prior  to  her  death  the  deceased  had  submitted  

numerous  complaints  to  different  authorities  

complaining of different instances of  unlawful conduct  

of the accused and expressing apprehensions of harm  

at the hands of the accused.

(ii) Tikiri P.S. Case Nos. 60, 62 and 70 had been registered  

on the basis  of  such complaints  against  the accused  

Netrananda  Dandasena  and  his  family  members  and  

chargesheets have been submitted in the said cases.  

1  (2011) 13 SCC 337 12

Page 13

(iii) The accused however remained at large; no protection  

was offered to the deceased; neither was she posted  

out of Tikiri.

(iv) The deceased was set ablaze on 27.10.2013.  Her dying  

declarations,  three  in  number,  implicates  accused,  

Netrananda  Dandasena  and  one  unknown  person  as  

being  the  perpetrators  of  the  crime   leading  to  her  

death.

(v) Tikiri  P.S.  Case  No.  92  has  been  registered  in  

connection  with  the  said  incident.   The  accused,  

Netrananda  Dandasena  has  been  arrested  on  

30.10.2013.   Chargesheet  has  been  submitted  on  

22.2.2014  against  Netrananda  Dandesena  and  the  

investigation has been kept open under Section 173 (8)  

Cr.P.C. against the other unidentified accused.

(vi) Two police officials namely Sujit Kumar Say, Inspector-

in-Charge  and  Muralidhar  Pradhan,  Assistant  Sub  

Inspector,  Tikiri  Police  Station  have  been  dismissed  

from service by order dated 05.11.2013 of the Home  

Department, Govt. of Odisha. 13

Page 14

(vii) Two  officials  of  the  Education  Department  namely  

Dharanidhar  Behera,  BEO  Rayagada  and  IIC  BEO  

Kashipur were dismissed from service by order dated  

05.11.2013  of  the  School  &  Mass  Education  

Department, Govt. of Odisha.

(viii) The promotion of accused Netrananda Dandasena was  

made alongwith  23 other  officials  by  an  order  dated  

15.10.2013  on  the  recommendations  of  the  

Departmental  Promotion  Committee  dated 1.12.2012.  

He  has  since  been  dismissed  from  service  by  order  

dated 05.11.2013.  

(ix) No material has been unearthed in the investigation of  

the case to show that Shri Jayaram Pangi, M.P., Karaput  

Constituency  had  made  any  phone  calls  to  the  

deceased to withdraw the case lodged by her against  

Netrananda Dandasena.

(x) No incriminating material has been found in the course  

of investigation of the case nor any material has been  

laid  before us  to  show the involvement  of  any other  

person,  wielding  political  or  bureaucratic  power  and  14

Page 15

influence,  in  connection  with  the  incident  that  had  

occurred.

(xi) A sum of Rs. 10 lakhs as ex-gratia payment has been  

paid to  the parents of  the deceased which has been  

duly accepted.  

7. Two  issues  arise  for  our  consideration.   The  first-

whether after filing of chargesheet under Section 302/120B  

IPC against the accused Netrananda Dandasena and keeping  

open the investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. there is  

any justification to entrust further investigation of the case  

to the Central Bureau of Investigation.  Irrespective of the  

above,  the  second  issue  that  will  require  consideration  is  

whether any direction for determination of the liability of any  

officer or authority of the State who had the occasion to deal  

with the matter is called for?   

8. On the  question  whether  a  criminal  case  in  which  a  

charge sheet has been filed by the local/state investigating  

agency  can/should  be  referred  to  Central  Bureau  of  

Investigation for further investigation there is near unanimity  

of judicial opinion.  In Gudalure M.J. Cherian vs. Union of  15

Page 16

India2 and  Punjab  &  Haryana  High  Court  Bar  

Association vs. State of Punjab3, it has held that after the  

chargesheet is filed the power to direct further investigation  

by Central Bureau of Investigation should not be normally  

resorted to by the Constitutional Courts unless exceptional  

circumstances  exist  either  to  doubt  the  fairness  of  the  

investigation or  there  are  compulsive  reasons founded on  

high public interest to do so.  Vineet Narain vs.  Union of  

India4, Union of India vs. Sushil Kumar Modi5 and Rajiv  

Ranjan  Singh  ‘Lalan’  (8)  vs.  Union  of  India6 are  not  

decisions on the same line as the issue in the said cases was  

with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Monitoring  

Court  to  order  further  investigation  of  a  case  after  

chargesheet  had  been  filed  by  the  Central  Bureau  of  

Investigation to which body the investigation already stood  

entrusted.    Rubabbuddin Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat7,  

really, carries forward the  law laid down in Gudalure M.J.  

Cherian  and  Punjab  &  Haryana  High  Court  Bar  

2  (1992) 1 SCC 397 3 (1994) 1 SCC 616 4 (1996) 2 SCC 199  5 (1998) 8 SCC 661 6 (2006) 6 SCC 613 7 (2010) 2 SCC 200

16

Page 17

Association (supra) which position finds reflection in para  

60 of the report which is in the following terms :  

“…….Therefore,  it  can  safely  be  concluded  that in an appropriate case when the court  feels  that  the  investigation  by  the  police  authorities is not in the proper direction and  in order to do complete justice in the case  and as the high police officials are involved   in the said crime, it was always open to the  court to hand over the investigation to the  independent  agency  like  CBI.  It  cannot  be  said  that  after  the  charge-sheet  is   submitted,  the court  is  not  empowered,  in  an  appropriate  case,  to  hand  over  the  investigation to an independent agency like  CBI.”  

9. The position has also  been succinctly  summed up in  

Disha (supra) to which one of us (the learned Chief Justice)  

was a party by holding that transfer of the investigation to  

the  Central Bureau of Investigation or any other specialised  

agency, notwithstanding the filing of the chargesheet, would  

be justified only when the Court is satisfied that on account  

of  the  accused  being  powerful  and  influential  the  

investigation has not proceeded in a proper direction or it  17

Page 18

has been biased.   Further investigation of a criminal  case  

after the chargesheet has been filed in a competent court  

may affect the jurisdiction of the said Court under Section  

173  (8)  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure.   Hence  it  is  

imperative that the said power, which, though, will  always  

vest in a Constitutional Court,  should be exercised only in  

situations befitting, judged on the touchstone of high public  

interest and the need to maintain the Rule of Law.  

10. The events relevant to the present adjudication may be  

conveniently  divided into  two compartments  –  one before  

the death of  Itishree Pradhan and the second subsequent  

thereto.  In this regard we would like to say that all human  

tragedies,  man  made  or  natural,  may  appear  to  be  

avoidable.   To  understand  such  phenomenon  as  pre-

ordained is an attitude of self-defeat, if not self deception,  

and  therefore  must  be  avoided.   At  the  same  time  

determination  of  human  culpability  in  not  successfully  

avoiding an event of disaster must be made by the test of  

exercise of due care, caution and reasonable foresight.  This,  

18

Page 19

according to us, is how the events surrounding the case will  

have to be judged.   

11. Insofar  as the  facts  and  circumstances  following  the  

death  of  Itishree  Pradhan  is  concerned,  in  view  of  the  

chargesheet filed and the departmental action taken against  

the  erring  officials,  we  do  not  feel  the  necessity  of  any  

further  direction  in  the  matter,  at  this  stage.   We  are,  

therefore, inclined to take the view that the power of this  

Court to refer a matter to Central Bureau of Investigation for  

further investigation, after filing of the chargesheet by the  

State investigating agency, ought not to be invoked in the  

present case.  Instead, the course of action that would be  

now  mandated  by  law  against  the  accused  Netrananda  

Dandasena should be allowed to reach its logical conclusion  

at the earliest.  At the same time the investigation that has  

been kept open against the unidentified accused should be  

completed without delay.  We direct accordingly and cast the  

responsibility in this regard on the Superintendent of Police,  

Rayagada.    However,  we  make  it  clear  that  the  trial  of  

accused Netrananda Dandasena shall not be held up on that  

19

Page 20

count  or  on any other  count  and the same shall  proceed  

forthwith and be concluded within the earliest possible time.  

12. The events preceding the incident of death, however,  

stand on a slightly different footing.  The same, prima facie,  

disclose some amount of laxity and indifference.  Therefore,  

even while noticing that disciplinary action has been taken  

against certain officials of the State, we are of the view that  

the State should hold a detailed administrative inquiry into  

the  matter  to  ascertain  whether  any  other  official  or  

authority, at any level, is responsible for not attending to the  

complaints, grievances and demands raised by the deceased  

either in the matter of action against accused Netrananda  

Dandasena or in providing security to her or in transferring  

her  from  Tikiri,  Rayagada  District.   On  the  basis  of  the  

findings and conclusions as may be reached in such inquiry,  

we direct the State to take necessary action in the matter.  

We  also  make  it  clear  that  we  have  not  expressed  any  

opinion  with  regard  to  the  liability  or  culpability  of  any  

official or functionary of the State in this regard.

20

Page 21

13. We accordingly dispose of the writ petition and place on  

record  our  appreciation  for  the  services  rendered  by  the  

young law student in seeking to vindicate the fundamental  

rights  of  the  deceased  and  for  the  painstaking  efforts  

expended by her to uphold the Rule of Law.

…………………………CJI. [P. SATHASIVAM]

......………………………J. [RANJAN GOGOI]

.........……………………J. [N.V. RAMANA]

NEW DELHI,  MARCH 12, 2014.

21