[Yogesh Gowda Murder] No political party is fighting to protect rights of citizens: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a batch of petitions filed by former State Minister Vinay Kulkarni and three other accused challenging the probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the 2016 Yogesh Gowda murder case [Basavaraj Shivappa Muttagi v. State of Karnataka]..Yogesh Gowda, a member of the Dharwad Zilla Panchayat and leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), was murdered in 2016. The case was subsequently handed over to the CBI for investigation in September 2019..In its order, a Division Bench of Justices B Veerappa and NS Sanjay Gowda, opined that the local investigating officers have not conducted the investigation in a fair and proper manner. Due to this, some of the accused persons have escaped from the clutches of law, it noted..Further, it was noted that subsequent supplementary charge sheets illustrated that the investigating officers have colluded with the accused persons by receiving gratification in order to dilute the investigation. "The petitioners-accused have not made out a case as to how they are prejudiced by facing trial. Ultimately after trial, the truth always prevails and hence, no injustice would be caused to the accused persons in facing the trial. In the circumstances, this is not a fit case where this Court can interfere with the impugned order passed by the State Government in exercise of discretionary powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. in entrusting the case to the 2nd respondent CBI for further investigation culminating into filing of FIR....".A Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court had earlier stayed the effect and operation of the government order handing over the probe to the CBI. Aggrieved by this, the CBI had preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court, which as an interim measure, directed a stay on the Single Judge's order..Following the apex court's intervention, the CBI conducted the investigation, after which a challan was filed on May 2, 2020. Cognizance in respect of the first challan filed by the CBI was also taken on the same day. CBI had also filed additional challans adding four more persons, who happened to be public servants, as accused persons. Thereafter, sanction to prosecute these public servants was also obtained by the CBI. On June 7, 2021, a trial court took cognisance of the said challans..On August 11, 2021, the Supreme Court asked the High Court to dispose of the proceedings challenging the grant of permission by the State government to CBI as early as possible, preferably within two months. Kulkarni and others thus moved the High Court challenging the investigation carried out by the CBI. .The petitioners contended that the government order (GO) was passed in the absence of any request by the family members of the deceased. Therefore, the same was nothing but politically motivated. Further, it was argued that the GO is opposed to the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence..The State government, on the other hand, contended that the provisions of Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE Act) permits a central agency to investigate an offence having taken place in the said territory, with the consent of the State government. .What the Court held.At the outset, the Court opined that this was a classic case where political parties and police authorities misuse their power to bury the truth in an unnatural death. The Court observed that the petitioners were unable to show how a miscarriage of justice took place when the trial court took cognizance of the supplementary charge sheets filed by CBI. "A defect or illegality in the investigation, however serious, has no direct bearing on the competence or the procedure relating to cognizance or trial."Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that once the initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent developments including filing of the supplementary charge sheets after an investigation by the CBI and taking cognizance are invalid, cannot be accepted, said the Court. .The Bench further said that the local investigating officers did not conduct the investigation in a fair and proper manner. In fact, those very investigating officers were arrayed as accused by the CBI for diluting the investigation by accepting gratification, the Court observed."Admittedly, in the present case, during the course of further investigation by CBI, it has come to light that some of the Police officials including previous Investigating Officer, are also found to be involved in the case and are found to have taken gratification to scuttle the investigation and they have been arrayed as Accused Nos.19 and 20. Accused No.19 is the previous Investigating Officer and Accused No.20 is the Supervisory Officer of Accused No.19. Therefore, the Government is justified in entrusting the matter to the CBI, an independent agency to conduct a fair trial and investigation. When there is an improper investigation by state police and high Police officials are involved, in order to do complete justice, direction for investigation by an independent and specialized agency like CBI, is warranted.".In its 258-page judgment, the Court went on to opine that a criminal trial is required to be fair to all the stakeholders, including the accused, the prosecution and the victim. "It is well settled that the trial should not be victim-centric, forgetting the valuable rights available to the accused, but, when the relevant material becomes available in accordance with law before the trial Court, the accused cannot be heard to say that the same cannot be looked into for a fair trial." It also noted, "Ultimately after trial, the truth always prevails and hence, no injustice would be caused to the accused persons in facing the trial. In the circumstances, this is not a fit case where this Court can interfere with the impugned order passed by the State Government." .The Court also made some remarks about the functioning of political parties in India. Even after 75 years of independence, no political party is fighting to protect the rights of every citizen of the country, the Court lamented. "Unfortunately, even after lapse of 75 years of independence of our country, no political party is fighting to protect the rights of every citizen of the country and every political party have their own agenda and design to continue in the power forever and every political party is trying to take advantage of the judicial process and misuse their power including the Investigating Officers, Police officials and official missionary.".The Court also elucidated upon the criminalisation of politics, opining that the same affects a democracy on the whole. "It is well settled that criminalisation of politics is an anathema to the sacredness of democracy. The growth and spread of crime indicate Indian society has been pervading and criminal elements developed an extensive network of contacts and the nexus between the politicians, bureaucrats and criminal elements in our country has been on rise, the adverse effects of which are increasingly being felt on various aspects of social life in India.".In the face of this, the judiciary must ensure that the guilty are punished in accordance with law, notwithstanding their status and authority, the Court added. .With these observations, the Court dismissed the petitions and also directed the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru to expedite the trial in the case..[Read the Judgment here]