Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Anantha Satya Udaya Bhaskara Rao … vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 31 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7810 of 2025
Between:-
Anantha Satya Udaya Bhaskara Rao @ Anantha Babu
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, (Through Sho, Sarpavaram P.S.,
Kakinada) rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
Amaravati.
2. The State Subdivisional Police Officer, Kakinada Sub-Division, Kakinada.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
****
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 31.07.2025
2
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the
fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
_________________________
Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
3
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025
* THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
+ CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.7810 OF 2025
% 31.07.2025
# Between:
Anantha Satya Udaya Bhaskara Rao @ Anantha Babu
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, (Through Sho, Sarpavaram P.S.,
Kakinada) rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
Amaravati.
2. The State Subdivisional Police Officer, Kakinada Sub-Division, Kakinada.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri G.Sai Lochan
^ Counsel for the Respondent : Sri D.Srinivas
4
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025
The Order of the Court was delivered by
Dr. Justice Y.LakshmanaRao:-- For the convenience of exposition, this
order is divided into the following parts:--
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER
C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
D. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
E. RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS
F. ANALYSIS
G. CONCLUSION
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1) 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2643
2) (2023) 16 SCC 779
3) (2013) 5 SCC 762
4) (1998) 5 SCC 223
5) (2009) 6 SCC 346
6) (2004) 5 SCC 347
7) (2008) 5 SCC 413
8) (2023) 12 SCC 592
9) (2023) 1 SCC 48
10) (2008) 2 SCC 383
11) (1992) 1 SCC 397
12) (2002) 4 SCR 536
5
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No:7810/2025
ORDER:
Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) {Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)} challenging the
order dated 22.07.2025 in Crl.M.P.431 of 2025 in SC ST S.C.No.78 of 2023 on
the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA)
Act – cum – X Additional District Court, Rajamahendravaram (for brevity the
Trial Court) in permitting the Respondent No.2/Investigating Officer to conduct
further investigation and file a report to that effect within a period of three months
from the date of the order.
A.FACTUAL MATRIX
2. On 20.05.2022 at 07:00 hours, Veedi Nooka Ratnam lodged a report with
Sarpavaram Police Station alleging that her elder son, by name Veedhi
Subrahmanyam, who was employed as a car driver by
accused/Petitioner/Anantha Udaya Bhaskar, Member of Legislative Council
(MLC), had died under suspicious circumstances. Three weeks prior to the
incident, the Veedhi Subrahmanyam sustained injuries in a motorcycle accident
and was convalescing at his residence. On 19.05.2022 at 19:30 hours, Veedhi
Subrahmanyam reportedly left his residence in the company of his
acquaintance, Arava Manikanta. Thereafter, at about 00:50 hours on
6
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025
20.05.2022, the accused contacted Veedi Nooka Ratnam/LW.1 on mobile
number 9440662222 and informed her that Veedhi Subrahmanyam had met
with an accident and was rendered unconscious. Subsequently, at 01:33 hours,
the accused made a second call, stating that he and Veedi Naveen were
present at Amrutha Hospital, situated near Janmabhumi Park, Kakinada.
3. In response, Veedi Nooka Ratnam, Veedi Satyanarayana and Veedi
Aparna proceeded to the hospital, where Veedi Nooka Ratnam/LW.1 found the
dead body of Veedhi Subrahmanyam lying inside a car bearing registration
number AP 39 B 0456, displaying multiple contusions and bleeding injuries,
especially on the lower extremities. Veedi Nooka Ratnam (LW.1) expressed
suspicion that the injuries appeared inconsistent with those typically sustained
in vehicular accidents and alleged that her son might have been subjected to
physical assault. Upon examination, Dr.Seelam Sravan Kumar (LW.37), a
medical officer, declared the deceased dead.
4. After the declaration of death, the accused sent Veedi Nooka
Ratnam/LW.1 and the mortal remain of Veedhi Subrahmanyam in the
aforementioned vehicle to their residence. He departed the location shortly,
thereafter, abandoning the said vehicle at the premises. Acting upon the report
of Veedi Nooka Ratnam (LW.1), N.Satish Babu, Sub Inspector of Police
(LW.54), registered a case in Crime No.195/2022, under Section 174 of ‘the
Cr.P.C.,’ for suspicious death.
5. Under the directions issued by V.Bhimarao, Sub Divisional Police Officer
(LW.56), A.Murali Krishna/Inspector of Police, Sarpavaram Police Station
7
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025
(LW.55), took up the investigation. The Investigating Officer examined the
scene of the incident in the presence of LWs.43 and 44, prepared a detailed
Scene Observation Report, and seized relevant material objects including the
suspected crime vehicle. It was noted that the blood relatives of the deceased,
namely Veedi Nooka Ratnam, Veedi Satyanarayana, Veedhi Naveen, Veedi
Aparna and Veedhi Srinu (LWs 1 to 4 and 14), were initially non-cooperative,
purportedly under the influence of political elements and Dalit associations,
which led to the staging of protests (Dharnas) at Government General Hospital,
Kakinada. This obstructed the immediate conduct of the inquest proceedings.
6. Following sustained efforts and negotiation by police officials with
Association representatives, caste elders, and relatives, the inquest was finally
conducted on 21.05.2022 in the presence of Rayudu Vani (LW.43), Polisetti
Venkata Satya Naga Janaki Anuradha Devi (LW.44) and Yenugupalli Krishna
(LW.45), the panchayatdars and the deceased’s kin. The cadaver was
thereafter forwarded to the Professor of Forensic Medicine, RMC, Government
Central Hospital, Kakinada, for autopsy.
7. It was further referred to in the chargesheet that Veedi Subrahmanyam
(deceased), aged 24 years and belonged to the Scheduled Caste (Mala). He
was employed as a car driver under the accused for approximately six years.
At the time of his marriage, he borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the accused,
repaying Rs.30,000/- while Rs.20,000/- remained unpaid. Following an accident
three weeks prior to the incident, the deceased had ceased working and was
convalescing at home. His pregnant spouse had relocated to her maternal
8
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025
residence in Samalkot. The accused persistently harassed the deceased and
his family for the recovery of the remaining loan amount, issuing threats of
grievous consequences.
8. On 19.05.2022, the deceased was seen with Arava Manikanta (LW.5)
and later consumed alcohol with friends. At approximately 10:30 PM, the
accused arrived at the scene, took the deceased into his Hyundai I20 bearing
No. AP39 B 0456, and left the premises. At 12:52 a.m., on 20.05.2022, the
accused contacted Veedi Satyanarayana (LW.2), falsely claiming that the
deceased had met with a motorcycle accident. Verification by Veedhi Naveen
(LW.3) confirmed no such incident occurred. Subsequently, the accused was
found with the deceased in an unconscious state at Amrutha Hospital, where
medical authorities confirmed death. The accused then transported the
deceased’s body to his residence, attempted to coerce the family into a hasty
cremation by offering Rs.2,00,000/- and issuing threats.
9. Upon observing suspicious injuries inconsistent with a traffic accident,
family members and witnesses doubted that the deceased had been subjected
to physical assault resulting in death. It was suspected that the accused bore
animosity due to professional disputes, repayment issues, and the deceased’s
knowledge of the accused’s illicit affairs. Upon confrontation, the accused
admitted to committing homicide and the matter was subsequently treated as a
case of murder.
10. The post-mortem examination was performed jointly by Dr.P.Uma
Maheswararao (LW.49) and Dr. P.Ramakrishna (LW.50), on 21.05.2022. The
9
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025
preliminary report issued by Dr.P.Uma Maheswararao (LW.49) opined that the
injuries sustained were ante-mortem in nature. This conclusion was found to be
in contradiction with the alleged confession of the accused, wherein it was
stated that the injuries were inflicted post-offence.
11. In furtherance of the investigation, Ms. M. Madhavi (LW.51), the learned
Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise cum VII
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, recorded statements of LWs.1 to 10
and 37 under Section 164 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ The contents therein corroborate the
material averments made in the earlier statements recorded under Section
161(3) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’
12. The autopsy of the deceased was conducted by Dr.P.Uma
Maheswararao (LW.49) and Dr. P.Ramakrishna (LW.50), who issued a
preliminary post-mortem certificate while withholding their final opinion pending
forensic reports from the RFSL and the pathology department of Government
General Hospital, Kakinada. V.Bhimarao, Sub Divisional Police Officer (LW.56),
submitted material evidence including CCTV footage, hard disks, and mobile
phones of the deceased and the accused to RFSL Vijayawada and SFSL
Mangalagiri for chemical examination and preservation of digital data. Upon
analysing the available CCTV footage and confessional statements, Sub
Divisional Police Officer identified inconsistencies that raised suspicions about
the actual scene of the offence and the possible involvement of other
individuals. Consequently, a petition was filed seeking police custody of the
accused, which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. Sub Divisional Police
10
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025
Officer then approached the High Court at Amaravati by filing Criminal Revision
Petition in Crl.P.No. 4852/2022. The High Court ordered service of personal
notice on the accused and directed submission of proof of service. The matter
remains surprisingly pending before the High Court as no steps were taken by
the then investigating officer through the Public Prosecutor for pressing the
disposal of the case for order of police custody of the Petitioner.
13. The investigation established that the deceased belonged to the Mala
community (Scheduled Caste) and the accused to the Kapu community (non-
Scheduled Caste). Evidence indicates the accused harboured a longstanding
grudge and deliberately murdered the deceased in a calculated and
remorseless manner. Following the crime, the accused attempted to mislead
the deceased’s family and residents by narrating false events to conceal the
nature of the offence. The accused further misdirected law enforcement agency
by providing inaccurate accounts, as confirmed by critical CCTV footage from
both his residence and the vicinity of the crime scene. These recordings are
essential in ascertaining the involvement of any other accused parties.
Ultimately, the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kakinada filed a chargesheet
against the Petitioner alleging that he is liable for offences punishable under
Section 302 and 201 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 3(1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (V) of ‘the
Act.’ It was also further mentioned in the chargesheet that if any reliable
evidence either technical or material regarding the involvement of other persons
come out, they would be charged with additional chargesheet.
11
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025
B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER:
14. Sri C.Raghu, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G.Sai Lochan,
learned Counsel for the Petitioner, argued that the Petitioner is the sole accused
and a charge sheet was filed for the alleged offences punishable under Sections
302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’) and
Sections 3(1) (r) (s), 3 (2) (V) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity ‘the Act’), on 03.08.2022. The
learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offences on 06.07.2023. The mother
of the deceased (LW.1) filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.24362 of 2022 seeking
directions for further investigation, but the writ petition was disposed on
04.01.2023 with certain directions to the investigating officer. Feeling aggrieved
by the said order, the mother of the deceased filed a Writ Appeal in W.A.No.290
of 2023 and the same was disposed of. Pursuant to the orders by the Division
Bench of this Court in the Writ Appeal further investigation was conducted under
Section 173(8) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and a supplementary charge sheet to that effect
was filed on 03.05.2023.
15. The mother of the deceased (LW.1) made a complaint to the Director
General of Police/D.G.P, Mangalagiri, after filing the supplementary charge
sheet, alleging that it was not possible for a sole accused to commit the crime.
The complaint of LW.1 was forwarded by the D.G.P to the Superintendent of
Police, vide R.C.No.1084/L&O-IV/2005 dated 11.04.2025, who in turn
instructed the Respondent No.2/Sub-Divisional Police Officer for conducting
12
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025
further investigation after obtaining necessary permission from the learned
Jurisdictional Court. Based on the petition filed by the investigating officer, the
impugned order was passed by the learned Trial Court.
16. Sri C.Raghu, learned Senior Counsel further argued by relying on a
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi1 that the power
under Section 173(8) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot be invoked unless there is further
evidence. It cannot be utilized for the purpose of conducting further investigation
based on vague complaints, when there is no material in the hands of the
prosecution.
17. In the petition submitted by the Investigating Officer before the learned
Trial Court seeking permission for further investigation, there is no mention of
any fresh evidence beyond what was already laid out in the chargesheet and
supplementary chargesheet, except for a representation made by the mother of
the deceased to the D.G.P, wherein she raises a suspicion about the
commission of the offence by the accused/petitioner alone.
18. Sri C.Raghu, learned Senior Counsel further, contended that a mere
representation made by the mother of the deceased, raising speculative doubts,
cannot constitute sufficient ground to maintain an application for further
investigation. It was urged that the Investigating Officer ought not to have filed
an applicating seeking permission for further investigation in the case. The
learned Trial Court failed to consider any contentions that were raised by the
1
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2643
13
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025
Petitioner. Therefore, it is urged to set aside the impugned order passed by the
learned Trial Court as there is no further evidence and the allegation of the
mother of the deceased is a vague, and there is no material in the hands of the
prosecution.
C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:
19. On the other hand, Sri D.Srinivas, learned Advocate General, argued that
there was no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Trial
Court. Based on the petition filed by the investigating officer, the learned Trial
Court rightly gave permission to conduct further investigation. Relying on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of T.N. v. Hemendhra Reddy2, it
is argued that there was no obligation on the part of the learned Trial Court to
hear the petitioner/accused while considering the application for further
investigation under Section 173(8) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ Yet, the learned Trial Court
heard the petitioner also and ordered for further investigation, but no further
reinvestigation was ordered. The order doesn’t require any interference on
whatsoever grounds.
20. Sri D.Srinivas, learned Advocate General, further submits that the Trial
Court’s order permitting further investigation under Section 173(8) of ‘the
Cr.P.C.,’ is legally sound, procedurally correct, and well within the scope of
judicial discretion. It is emphasized that this provision was enacted to empower
law enforcement agencies to uncover additional facts and analyse new material
2
(2023) 16 SCC 779
14
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025
evidence that may surface even after the filing of the original charge sheet. In
this case, the emergence of forensic reports, digital evidence such as CCTV
footage, mobile data, and hard disk contents significantly altered the trajectory
of the investigation. These developments warranted a deeper inquiry, especially
given the inconsistencies between the post-mortem findings and the accused’s
alleged confession.
21. Sri D.Srinivas, learned Advocate General furthermore submits that the
order for reinvestigation, granted by the learned Trial Court, was well-founded
and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness. The doubts
raised by the mother of the deceased regarding the accused’s sole involvement
are substantial and warrant a thorough re-examination of the case. The fact that
the deceased was physically more robust than the accused raises a reasonable
suspicion that the injuries could not have been inflicted solely by the accused,
thereby necessitating further investigation to uncover the truth. Reinvestigation
is a legitimate and necessary step to ensure that no innocent person is
wrongfully prosecuted and that all relevant evidence is fully explored. The
learned Trial Court’s discretion to order such reinvestigation is supported by the
need to uphold the integrity of the judicial process and to arrive at a just and fair
conclusion based on comprehensive evidence. Therefore, the order for
reinvestigation should be upheld, and it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
D. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:
22. Now the points for consideration are:
15
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025i. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief in the criminal
petition, against the order dated 22.07.2025 in Crl.M.P.431 of
2025 in SC ST S.C.No.78 of 2023 on the file of the learned
Special Judge for Trial of Cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act
– cum – X Additional District Court, Rajamahendravaram?
ii. If so, what relief and to what extent?
E. RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS:
23. Before adverting to the rival submissions canvassed on either side, it is
necessary for us to investigate a few relevant provisions of ‘the Act.,’ ‘the
Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of ‘the Act’
3.Punishments for offences of atrocities: —
(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe,–
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste
name in any place within public view;
Section 3 (2) (V) of ‘the Act’
(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe,–
(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a
person or property knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall
be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;
Section 173 (8) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’
(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation
in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been
forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer-
in-charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary,
he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such
evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6)
shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they
apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2).
Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’
16
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025
482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.
– Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers
of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to
any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court
or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Section 302 of ‘the I.P.C.’
302. Punishment for murder:–
Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for
life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 201 of ‘the I.P.C.’
201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false
information to screen offender.–
Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been
committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to
disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment,
or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he
knows or believes to be false;
if a capital offence.– shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have
been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also
be liable to fine;
if punishable with imprisonment for life.– and if the offence is punishable
with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten
years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment.– and if the offence is
punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall
be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence,
for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the
imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.
F. ANALYSIS:
24. After conducting investigation, Respondent No.2 filed a charge sheet
before the learned Trial Court against the petitioner on 03.08.2022. The learned
Trial Court took cognizance on 06.07.2023. While things stood thus the mother
of the deceased, the de-facto complainant, filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.24362
of 2022 before this Court for direction for further investigation. However, on
04.01.2023, the Writ Petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this
Court with the following order:
17
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025“24. One of the prime requirements of any criminal investigation is the
credibility of such investigation and the confidence it evokes in the stake
holders of the said investigation. To ensure that, such confidence is further
retained, this writ petition is being disposed of with the following directions:
1. The investigating officer shall take immediate steps to
obtain the forensic science lab reports in relation to C.C TV
footage, at the earliest, and preferably within 15 days from the
date of this order.
2. The investigating officer, upon identification of the
persons/person in the CC TV footage, shall conduct a
thorough investigation into the reasons for the presence of
such persons and their role, if any, in the commission of
offence or in the cover up of the said offence.
3. The investigating officer, upon finding any incriminating
material or record in this regard shall include all such persons
against whom such incriminating material is obtained as
accused in the case and file a supplementary charge sheet
under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., before the Magistrate.
4. This direction is being given, as the matter is still pending
before the Magistrate for committal to a Court of Sessions. In
the event of the investigation being completed after the
committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the
investigating officer shall file the supplementary charge sheet
before the Court of Sessions itself.
5. This process of further investigation, in relation to any
further material against the sole accused and in relation to the
involvement of other persons in this crime, shall be completed
expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months
from the date of this order.”
25. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the de-facto complainant preferred
an appeal and it was disposed of by the learned Division Bench of this Court on
01.12.2023 with the following direction:
“15. Needless to emphasize that the above decisions apply to the case on
hand as in the instant case also the prayer in the writ petition was to transfer
the investigation in Cr.No.195/2022 to CBI and learned single Judge
observed that the conditions necessary for ordering transfer of investigation
to an independent agency like CBI do not exist and instead passed order
issuing certain directions to the Investigating Officer. The said order was
passed by learned single Judge while exercising the criminal jurisdiction in
criminal proceedings, inasmuch as his order upheld the investigation
conducted in the criminal proceedings by the State Agency. Therefore, in the
light of jurisprudence enunciated by Hon’ble Apex Court, an intra-court writ
appeal is not maintainable under clause 15 of Letters Patent as against the
said order. This point is accordingly answered against the appellants. The
18
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025decision cited by learned counsel for appellants will be of no avail to their
cause.”
26. Pursuant to the above orders further investigation was conducted under
Section 173 (8) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ by respondent No.2 and supplementary charge
sheet was filed on 03.05.2023.
27. While things stood thus, the de-facto complainant submitted a complaint
to the D.G.P stating that it was not possible for the petitioner alone to attack the
deceased and dealt 31 external injuries and 3 internal injuries and caused death
of his son. So, she suspected that some more people were also involved along
with the petitioner. Hence, she requested further investigation into the case for
the ends of justice.
28. The letter of the de-facto complainant was forwarded by the DGP to the
Superintendent of Police, Kakinada District, who in turn directed Respondent
No.2 to conduct necessary further investigation by obtaining permission from
the learned Trial Court.
29. Accordingly, a petition was filed by Respondent No.2 under Section
193(9) of ‘the BNSS’ {173(8) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’} for granting permission to conduct
necessary further investigation. At paragraph No.4 of the petition, the
Respondent No.2 submitted that the mother of the deceased raised a doubt that
the deceased was an able-bodied person than the accused and the accused
alone cannot inflict 31 external injuries and 3 internal injuries which resulted in
the death of the deceased. She further represented that the previous
investigating officers had not analyzed the cellphone call data of the deceased,
19
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025accused and others which were obtained from service providers to establish the
involvement of other persons in the crime. She further submitted that the earlier
investigating officers had not properly examined and interrogated the gunmen
and other witnesses. It was further mentioned in the petition that Respondent
No.2 felt that there was a necessity to examine some more witnesses, after
examining the CD file, and it is just necessity for further investigation on the
points raised by the mother of the deceased to obtain technical and scientific
evidence.
30. Mr. Raghu learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued that the
investigating officers at the time of conducting the investigation thoroughly
examined the witnesses including the gunmen L.Ws.11 and 12, recorded their
statements, obtained the CCTV footages and on analyzation came to clear
conclusion that except the accused, no one had participated in the commission
of the alleged offence. Even as per the call data of the accused, it was
established that the accused alone is liable for the offences. Hence, there is no
need to conduct further investigation into this matter. The impugned order of the
learned Trial Court suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be set
aside.
31. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali3, at
para-Nos.20 to 23 and 43 held as under:
“20. Having noticed the provisions and relevant part of the scheme of the
Code, now we must examine the powers of the court to direct investigation.
Investigation can be ordered in varied forms and at different stages. Right at
3
(2013) 5 SCC 762
20
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025
the initial stage of receiving the FIR or a complaint, the court can direct
investigation in accordance with the provisions of Section 156(1) in exercise
of its powers under Section 156(3) of the Code. Investigation can be of the
following kinds:
(i) Initial investigation,
(ii) Further investigation,
(iii) Fresh or de novo or reinvestigation.
21. The “initial investigation” is the one which the empowered police officer
shall conduct in furtherance of registration of an FIR. Such investigation itself
can lead to filing of a final report under Section 173(2) of the Code and shall
take within its ambit the investigation which the empowered officer shall
conduct in furtherance of an order for investigation passed by the court of
competent jurisdiction in terms of Section 156(3) of the Code.
22. “Further investigation” is where the investigating officer obtains further
oral or documentary evidence after the final report has been filed before the
court in terms of Section 173(8). This power is vested with the executive. It
is the continuation of previous investigation and, therefore, is understood and
described as “further investigation”. The scope of such investigation is
restricted to the discovery of further oral and documentary evidence. Its
purpose is to bring the true facts before the court even if they are discovered
at a subsequent stage to the primary investigation. It is commonly described
as “supplementary report”. “Supplementary report” would be the correct
expression as the subsequent investigation is meant and intended to
supplement the primary investigation conducted by the empowered police
officer. Another significant feature of further investigation is that it does not
have the effect of wiping out directly or impliedly the initial investigation
conducted by the investigating agency. This is a kind of continuation of the
previous investigation. The basis is discovery of fresh evidence and in
continuation of the same offence and chain of events relating to the same
occurrence incidental thereto. In other words, it has to be understood in
complete contradistinction to a “reinvestigation”, “fresh” or “de novo”
investigation.
23. However, in the case of a “fresh investigation”, “reinvestigation” or “de
novo investigation” there has to be a definite order of the court. The order of
the court unambiguously should state as to whether the previous
investigation, for reasons to be recorded, is incapable of being acted upon.
Neither the investigating agency nor the Magistrate has any power to order
or conduct “fresh investigation”. This is primarily for the reason that it would
be opposed to the scheme of the Code. It is essential that even an order of
“fresh”/”de novo” investigation passed by the higher judiciary should always
be coupled with a specific direction as to the fate of the investigation already
conducted. The cases where such direction can be issued are few and far
between. This is based upon a fundamental principle of our criminal
jurisprudence which is that it is the right of a suspect or an accused to have
a just and fair investigation and trial. This principle flows from the
constitutional mandate contained in Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of
India. Where the investigation ex facie is unfair, tainted, mala fide and
smacks of foul play, the courts would set aside such an investigation and
direct fresh or de novo investigation and, if necessary, even by another
independent investigating agency. As already noticed, this is a power of wide
21
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025
plenitude and, therefore, has to be exercised sparingly. The principle of the
rarest of rare cases would squarely apply to such cases. Unless the
unfairness of the investigation is such that it pricks the judicial conscience of
the court, the court should be reluctant to interfere in such matters to the
extent of quashing an investigation and directing a “fresh investigation”.
43. At this stage, we may also state another well-settled canon of the criminal
jurisprudence that the superior courts have the jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code or even Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct “further
investigation”, “fresh” or “de novo” and even “reinvestigation”. “Fresh”, “de
novo” and “reinvestigation” are synonymous expressions and their result in
law would be the same. The superior courts are even vested with the power
of transferring investigation from one agency to another, provided the ends
of justice so demand such action. Of course, it is also a settled principle that
this power has to be exercised by the superior courts very sparingly and with
great circumspection.”
32. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala4, at
para No.24 held as under:
“24. From a plain reading of the above section it is evident that even after
submission of police report under sub-section (2) on completion of
investigation, the police has a right of “further” investigation under sub-section
(8) but not “fresh investigation” or “reinvestigation”. That the Government of
Kerala was also conscious of this position is evident from the fact that though
initially it stated in the Explanatory Note of their notification dated 27-6-1996
(quoted earlier) that the consent was being withdrawn in public interest to order
a “reinvestigation” of the case by a special team of State police officers, in the
amendatory notification (quoted earlier) it made it clear that they wanted a
“further investigation of the case” instead of “reinvestigation of the case”. The
dictionary meaning of “further” (when used as an adjective) is “additional;
more; supplemental”. “Further” investigation therefore is the continuation of
the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be
started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. In drawing this
conclusion we have also drawn inspiration from the fact that sub-section (8)
clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation the investigating
agency has to forward to the Magistrate a “further” report or reports — and not
fresh report or reports — regarding the “further” evidence obtained during such
investigation. Once it is accepted — and it has got to be accepted in view of
the judgment in Kazi Lhendup Dorji [1994 Supp (2) SCC 116 : 1994 SCC (Cri)
873] — that an investigation undertaken by CBI pursuant to a consent granted
under Section 6 of the Act is to be completed, notwithstanding withdrawal of
the consent, and that “further investigation” is a continuation of such
investigation which culminates in a further police report under sub-section (8)
of Section 173, it necessarily means that withdrawal of consent in the instant
case would not entitle the State Police, to further investigate into the case. To
put it differently, if any further investigation is to be made it is the CBI alone
which can do so, for it was entrusted to investigate into the case by the State
4
(1998) 5 SCC 223
22
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025
Government. Resultantly, the notification issued withdrawing the consent to
enable the State Police to further investigate into the case is patently invalid
and unsustainable in law. In view of this finding of ours we need not go into
the questions, whether Section 21 of the General Clauses Act applies to the
consent given under Section 6 of the Act and whether consent given for
investigating into Crime No. 246 of 1994 was redundant in view of the general
consent earlier given by the State of Kerala.”
33. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar5, at para
No.17 held as under:
“17. From a plain reading of sub-section (2) and sub-section (8) of Section
173, it is evident that even after submission of the police report under sub-
section (2) on completion of the investigation, the police has a right to
“further” investigation under sub-section (8) of Section 173 but not “fresh
investigation” or “reinvestigation”. The meaning of “further” is additional,
more, or supplemental. “Further” investigation, therefore, is the continuation
of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to
be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether.”
34. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of
Gujarat6, at para No.13 held as under:
“13. In Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979
SCC (Cri) 479 : AIR 1979 SC 1791] it was observed by this Court that further
investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because cognisance has been
taken by the court. When defective investigation comes to light during course
of trial, it may be cured by further investigation, if circumstances so permitted.
It would ordinarily be desirable and all the more so in this case, that the police
should inform the court and seek formal permission to make further
investigation when fresh facts come to light instead of being silent over the
matter keeping in view only the need for an early trial since an effective trial
for real or actual offences found during course of proper investigation is as
much relevant, desirable and necessary as an expeditious disposal of the
matter by the courts. In view of the aforesaid position in law, if there is
necessity for further investigation, the same can certainly be done as
prescribed by law. The mere fact that there may be further delay in
concluding the trial should not stand in the way of further investigation if that
would help the court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial as
well as effective justice. We make it clear that we have not expressed any
final opinion on the merits of the case.”
5
(2009) 6 SCC 346
6
(2004) 5 SCC 347
23
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025
35. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramachandran v. R. Udhayakumar7, at para
Nos.7 & 8 held as under:
“7. At this juncture it would be necessary to take note of Section 173 of the
Code. From a plain reading of the above section it is evident that even after
completion of investigation under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the
Code, the police has right to further investigate under sub-section (8), but
not fresh investigation or reinvestigation. This was highlighted by this Court
in K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala [(1998) 5 SCC 223 : 1998 SCC (Cri)
1291] . It was, inter alia, observed as follows : (SCC p. 237, para 24)
“24. The dictionary meaning of ‘further’ (when used as an adjective) is
‘additional; more; supplemental’. ‘Further’ investigation therefore is the
continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or
reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation
altogether. In drawing this conclusion we have also drawn inspiration from
the fact that sub-section (8) clearly envisages that on completion of further
investigation the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a
‘further’ report or reports–and not fresh report or reports–regarding the
‘further’ evidence obtained during such investigation.”
8. In view of the position of law as indicated above, the directions of the
High Court for reinvestigation or fresh investigation are clearly indefensible.
We, therefore, direct that instead of fresh investigation there can be further
investigation if required under Section 173(8) of the Code. The same can
be done by CB CID as directed by the High Court.”
36. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh8,
at para No.49 held as under:
“49. We are conscious of the fact that though a satisfaction of want of
proper, fair, impartial and effective investigation eroding its credence and
reliability is the precondition for a direction for further investigation or re-
investigation, submission of the charge-sheet ipso facto or the pendency of
the trial can, by no means, be a prohibitive impediment. The contextual
facts and the attendant circumstances have to be singularly evaluated and
analysed to decide the needfulness of further investigation or re-
investigation to unravel the truth and mete out justice to the parties. The
prime concern and the endeavour of the court of law should be to secure
justice on the basis of true facts which ought to be unearthed through a
committed, resolved and a competent investigating agency.”
7
(2008) 5 SCC 413
8
(2023) 12 SCC 592
24
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025
37. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar9, at
para No.45 held as under:
“45. For what has been noticed hereinbefore, we could reasonably cull out
the principles for application to the present case as follows:
45.1. The scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to ensure a
fair trial and that would commence only after a fair and just investigation.
The ultimate aim of every investigation and inquiry, whether by the police
or by the Magistrate, is to ensure that the actual perpetrators of the crime
are correctly booked and the innocents are not arraigned to stand trial.
45.2. The powers of the Magistrate to ensure proper investigation in terms
of Section 156CrPC have been recognised, which, in turn, include the
power to order further investigation in terms of Section 173(8)CrPC after
receiving the report of investigation. Whether further investigation should or
should not be ordered is within the discretion of the Magistrate, which is to
be exercised on the facts of each case and in accordance with law.
45.3. Even when the basic power to direct further investigation in a case
where a charge-sheet has been filed is with the Magistrate, and is to be
exercised subject to the limitations of Section 173(8)CrPC, in an
appropriate case, where the High Court feels that the investigation is not in
the proper direction and to do complete justice where the facts of the case
so demand, the inherent powers under Section 482CrPC could be
exercised to direct further investigation or even reinvestigation. The
provisions of Section 173(8)CrPC do not limit or affect such powers of the
High Court to pass an order under Section 482CrPC for further investigation
or reinvestigation, if the High Court is satisfied that such a course is
necessary to secure the ends of justice.
45.4. Even when the wide powers of the High Court in terms of Section
482CrPC are recognised for ordering further investigation or
reinvestigation, such powers are to be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection, and in exceptional cases.
45.5. The powers under Section 482CrPC are not unlimited or
untrammelled and are essentially for the purpose of real and substantial
justice. While exercising such powers, the High Court cannot issue
directions so as to be impinging upon the power and jurisdiction of other
authorities. For example, the High Court cannot issue directions to the State
to take advice of the State Public Prosecutor as to under what provision of
law a person is to be charged and tried when ordering further investigation
or reinvestigation; and it cannot issue directions to investigate the case only
from a particular angle. In exercise of such inherent powers in extraordinary
circumstances, the High Court cannot specifically direct that as a result of
further investigation or reinvestigation, a particular person has to be
prosecuted.”
9
(2023) 1 SCC 48
25
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025
38. The Hon’ble Apex Court State of A.P. v. A.S. Peter 10, at para Nos.16 &
17 held as under:
“16. Even in regard to an independent investigation undertaken by the
police authorities, it was observed: (Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979
SCC (Cri) 479] , SCC p. 338, para 21)
“21. … In our view, notwithstanding that a Magistrate had taken cognizance
of the offence upon a police report submitted under Section 173 of the 1898
Code, the right of the police to further investigate was not exhausted and
the police could exercise such right as often as necessary when fresh
information came to light. Where the police desired to make a further
investigation, the police could express their regard and respect for the court
by seeking its formal permission to make further investigation.”
17. It is not a case where investigation was carried out in relation to a
separate conspiracy. As allegations had been made against the officer of a
local police station in regard to the mode and manner in which investigation
was carried out, a further investigation was directed. The court was
informed thereabout. Although, no express permission was granted, but
evidently, such a permission was granted by necessary implication as
further proceeding was stayed by the learned Magistrate. It is also not a
case where two charge-sheets were filed before two different courts. The
court designated to deal with the matters wherein investigation had been
carried out by CID, is located at Chittoor. It is in the aforementioned
situation, the Sessions Judge transferred the case pending in the Tirupati
Court to the Designated Court at Chittoor. Cognizance of further offence
had also been taken by the Chittoor Court.”
39. Even as seen from the averments of the charge sheet filed by the
investigating officer on 14.04.2023, there is a reference about analyzing the call
data of the accused but there is no reference about analyzing the call data of
the deceased and others. The investigating officer sought permission for
conducting further investigation to get some more technical and scientific
evidence. If further investigation is ordered no prejudice would be caused to the
petitioner for the simple reason that the Petitioner has already been arrayed as
accused and a charge sheet was also filed against him. The Hon’ble Apex Court
in Vinay Tyagi‘s case, relied on the learned Senior Counsel, also at para No.11
10
(2008) 2 SCC 383
26
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025
held that the investigating agency is competent to file a supplementary report
to its primary report in terms of Section 173(8) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ It is further held
at para No.15 that further investigation is where the investigating officer obtains
further oral or documentary evidence.
40. It is the continuation of a previous investigation and therefore it is
understood and described as a further investigation. The scope of such
investigation is restricted to the discovery of further oral and documentary
evidence. The basis is the discovery of fresh evidence and in continuation of
the same offence and chain of events relating to the same incidental occurrence
thereto. It must be understood in complete contradistinction to a reinvestigation,
fresh or de novo investigation. At para No.16 in Vinay Tyagi‘s case it was
further held that a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
suspect or an accused has a right to have a just and fair investigation and trial.
This principle flows from the constitutional mandate contained in Article 21 and
22 of Constitution of India. If the investigation is unfair, tainted, mala fide and
smacks of foul play the Courts would set aside such an investigation and direct
fresh or de novo investigation and if necessary, even by another independent
investigating agency.
41. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Vinay Tyagi‘s case while quoting the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gudalure M.J. Cherian v. Union of
India11, held that in each situation to do justice between the parties and to instill
11
(1992) 1 SCC 397
27
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025
confidence in public mind it may become necessary to pass such orders. The
contention or the grievance or the suspicion of the mother of the deceased is
that the deceased sustained 31 external injuries and 3 internal injuries and it
was not possible for the accused alone to cause those fatal injuries without the
participation of other culprits. The earlier investigating officer in the case
concluded that the accused alone caused the above-mentioned injuries. The
investigating officer in his charge sheet concluded that the deceased was lost
seen alive in the company of the accused and the deceased was found dead in
the car of the accused. If further investigation is conducted on technical and
scientific evidence as desired by Respondent No.2 in his petition before the
Trial Court, the truth would come out. The object of conducting investigation is
to find out the truth and bring the real culprits to the book. The object of
conducting the trial is to find out the truth and punish the real culprits.
42. As observed supra, the petitioner is already arrayed as the sole accused
and charge sheet was filed against him. No prejudice would be caused to the
petitioner if further investigation alone is conducted by Respondent No.2. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in Hemendhra Reddy’s case supra held at para-No.85.4
that there is nothing in ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ to suggest that the Court is obliged to hear
the accused while considering an application for further investigation under
Section 173 (8) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ At para-No.68 it is also held that even without
any direction from the Court, it is open to the police to conduct proper
investigation even after the Court takes cognizance of any offence on the
strength of a police report earlier submitted.
28
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025
43. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vinay Tyagi‘s case clarified what
further investigation is in terms of Section 173(8) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ Further
investigation means the investigating officer is obligated to discover further oral
and documentary evidence alone. It is the continuation of a previous
investigation that is why it is understood and described as further investigation.
It is a kind of continuation of the previous investigation for discovery of fresh
evidence. Be that as it may, at para-No.16 of the judgment of Vinay Tyagi’s
case, however, in the case of a fresh investigation or reinvestigation or de novo
investigation there must be a definite order of the Court. The order of the Court
unambiguously should ask whether the previous investigation for reasons to be
recorded is incapable of being acted upon. In that regard, neither the
investigation agency nor the Magistrate has any power to order or conduct a
fresh investigation. That is primarily because it would be opposed to the scheme
of the code. It is essential that even an order of fresh/de novo investigation
passed by the higher judiciary should always be coupled with a specific direction
as to the fate of the investigation already conducted.
44. In criminal jurisprudence, the power to direct a de novo investigation or
reinvestigation is vested solely in the superior judiciary and must be exercised
through a specific and well-reasoned judicial order. Such an order must
categorically record why the prior investigation is incapable of being acted upon,
be it due to procedural lapses, apparent bias, or mala fides. Crucially, neither
the investigating agency nor the learned Magistrate possesses the jurisdiction
29
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025
to initiate a de novo investigation or reinvestigation, as doing so would
contravene the procedural framework established under ‘the Cr.P.C.’
45. The constitutional mandate for a fair investigation and trial, rooted in
Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, necessitates that learned Courts
intervene in extraordinary situations where the initial investigation is
demonstrably tainted or so perfunctory that it violates the foundational principles
of justice. In such rare and exceptional cases, the superior Court may direct a
de novo investigation, thereby annul the previous inquiry and requiring an
entirely fresh probe, sometimes by an independent agency, to restore public
faith in the justice system. The discretion to order a reinvestigation, though
synonymous in effect with a de novo investigation, may be exercised by
superior courts under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ or Article 226 of the
Constitution. These expressions may differ in nomenclature but are judicially
treated as interchangeable when the objective is to ensure fairness and
transparency in the investigative process. The superior judiciary may even
transfer the investigation to another agency if circumstances so demand,
provided such action safeguards the ends of justice. However, this power must
be invoked sparingly and only where compelling reasons exist that shock the
judicial conscience.
30
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025
G. CONCLUSION:
46. This Court as mentioned earlier in W.P.No.24362 of 2022 gave nearly
five directions while disposing of the Writ Petition filed by the mother of the
deceased.
47. The contentions raised by the mother of the deceased in the above Writ
Petition were negated by the learned Single Judge of this Court on the ground
that they did not appear to make out exceptional circumstances for ordering the
investigation by the independent investigating agency i.e., CBI. The Division
Bench of this Court did not incline to interfere with the order passed by the
learned Single Judge and dismissed the Writ Appeal.
48. In this case it is to be pointed out that the defacto complainant/mother of
the deceased being the victim has not arrayed as Respondent No.3 as per the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jagjeet Singh and others v. Ashish
Mishra12. Further the impugned order was passed by the learned Trial Court
constituted for Trial of Cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act – cum – X Additional
District Court, Rajamahendravaram. As per Section 14-A of ‘the Act’,
notwithstanding anything contained in ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ an appeal shall lie, from any
judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court
or an Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and on law.
Therefore, the order passed by the learned Trial Court is an appealable one
12
(2002) 4 SCR 536
31
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025
Dt.31.07.2025
and an appeal lies against that order. Further the Petitioner filed the present
petition under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C‘.
49. Be that as it may, now the investigating officer wanted to conduct
reinvestigation to obtain some more fresh technical and scientific evidence to
find out whether any person other than the petitioner/accused was also involved
in this case, since the deceased suffered 31 external injuries and three internal
injuries. The investigating officer is required to conduct further investigation only
for the discovery of further oral and documentary evidence. He cannot conduct
a fresh investigation or reinvestigation or de novo investigation.
50. Scope of such investigation is restricted to the discovery of further oral
and documentary evidence. The accused/Petitioner has got a right of just and
reasonable investigation and trial as recognized under Articles 21 and 22 of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, the Investigating Officer is directed to conduct
only further investigation. He is specifically directed not to conduct any fresh
investigation or de novo investigation or re-investigation as it is against the
scheme of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and file supplementary chargesheet within the period
stipulated by the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, these two points are
answered.
51. With the above observations and directions, this Criminal Petition is
disposed of.
_________________________
Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Dt:31.07.2025
VTS