Supreme Court Orders CBI Investigation into Death of Assistant District Prosecution Officer Ranjana Diwan
In Mandakini Diwan and Another v. The High Court of Chhattisgarh & Others, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct a complete, fair and expeditious investigation into the 2016 death of Assistant District Prosecution Officer Ranjana Diwan.
Supreme Court decision
The Court held that although transfer of an investigation to the CBI is an extraordinary power that must be exercised sparingly, the circumstances of this case justified an independent investigation. The appellants had alleged bias and undue influence over the State police machinery, and the Court considered a thorough investigation necessary to ascertain the truth, particularly in relation to the ante-mortem injuries reported on the deceased.
Directions issued to the CBI
- The CBI was directed to carry out a complete and fair investigation and proceed in accordance with law.
- The investigation was to be conducted expeditiously, considering that the incident occurred in 2016.
- If the CBI finds that registration of an FIR is required, it may register the FIR and proceed with the investigation.
- If the material collected does not justify submission of a charge-sheet, the CBI may close the proceedings in accordance with law.
- The State of Chhattisgarh was directed to extend full cooperation and provide necessary papers and logistical support.
- The Supreme Court clarified that it had made no finding on the merits and that its observations should not influence the CBI investigation.
Facts leading to the appeal
Respondent No. 7 had been selected and appointed in June 2013 as an Additional District Judge at Geedam, Dantewada. He married Ranjana Diwan on 15 February 2014. At the relevant time, Ranjana Diwan was serving as an Assistant District Prosecution Officer and both were posted in Dantewada.
On the night of 12 May 2016, the appellants-her mother and brother-were informed that she had died by suicide. They travelled from Bilaspur to Dantewada. The post-mortem conducted on 13 May 2016 recorded death due to asphyxia caused by hanging and also noted six ante-mortem injuries.
The police registered a marg proceeding under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to the appellants, the matter was treated as suicide and their repeated requests for registration of an FIR and a fair investigation did not result in the action they sought. They alleged that the investigation had been affected by the influence of Respondent No. 7.
The appellants filed W.P. (Crl.) No. 197 of 2016 before the Chhattisgarh High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 10 May 2023, while granting liberty to pursue an appropriate statutory remedy. The Supreme Court subsequently allowed the appeal and ordered the CBI investigation.
CrPC and BNSS legal context
Why the ruling is significant
The decision reiterates that a CBI investigation is not to be ordered routinely. At the same time, constitutional courts may direct an independent investigation where exceptional circumstances make it necessary to preserve confidence in the investigative process and secure a fair inquiry. In this case, the allegations of bias and influence, combined with the unexplained ante-mortem injuries, were central to the Supreme Court's decision to intervene.