Supreme Court Issues Notice To Government Of Rajasthan; Seeks Explanation For Delay In Investigation In The Murder Of Law Student  

THE Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Rajasthan Government on a plea seeking to transfer the case of the alleged murder of an NLU Jodhpur student to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The deceased student Vikrant Nagaich’s body was found in an open ground near railway tracks opposite to the university in August 2017. The plea, filed by the mother of the deceased, says that no charge sheet has been filed in the last three years. She alleges that the investigation is at a standstill and no effort has been made to apprehend the offenders

As per the averments in the petition, the petitioner and her husband had to run from pillar to post to register an F.I.R. to investigate the mysterious and unnatural death of their son. Finally on June 27, 2018, i.e. 10 months after the date of the incident, the Crime Investigation Department (CID), Crime Branch, Jaipur registered an FIR in the matter under Section 302 of the IPC. Advocate-on-Record (AoR) Astha Sharma alleges that the Rajasthan police has been “lackadaisical and negligent” in their approach. She alludes that “is a result of probable collusion to shield some high, mighty and influential person”. 

The plea notes that injuries on the neck, head and testicles of the deceased were never investigated. These injuries would not have been present had the deceased committed suicide. Further, one slipper worn by the deceased was not recovered either on the dead body or near the place of incident. This, according to the plea, indicates that the body was either moved after the incident or there was a struggle of some sorts before the student’s death. Yet, the same has not been investigated by CID at all.

After hearing Advocate Sunil Fernandes for the petitioner; a three-judge bench comprising Justices Rohinton F Nariman, Navin Sinha, and BR Gavai have fixed the next hearing in July to hear the State of Rajasthan on why the investigation had not progressed in three years. “The chronology of events raised a reasonable suspicion that the death of Petitioner’s son was not merely an accident, or suicide but was something more grave and profound, which demanded immediate consideration and investigation. However, the same was not carried out by the investigation agency, and the Petitioner was left dismayed and devastated after the death of her only child”, the petitioner had said.