A division bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P V Sanjay Kumar directed the investigating officer to produce before the court the case diary on April 28, while declining to accept for now the defence prayer seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation probe into the case.
The bench sought to know from Additional Advocate General D Srinivas about the stage of investigation pertaining to the case.
"After the first information report has been registered, whether the IO examined any person? Is anybody arrested or questioned," it asked.
The AAG informed the bench that preliminary steps were undertaken with regard to the matter. However, the complainant (Muniyammal and others) refused to record their statements before the police.
"A Special Investigation Team has been constituted under an IG-rank officer to probe the incident," the AAG said.
Defence counsel V Raghunath submitted before the court that the FIR was registered only on April 14 and that too against ‘unknown’ STF personnel, which he asserted ‘was a malicious intention to screen (shelter or protect) the culprits’.
To this, the court observed: "At this stage (FIR against) the ‘unknown’ is appropriate. If you have any names (of those involved in the firing), tell the names. You can make a statement before magistrate."
When defence counsel insisted on the need for a CBI probe into the case, the bench responded, "You have not produced any (biased) material to substantiate the allegation. Therefore, at this stage we are not satisfied...unless you are in a position to establish that the IO is not conducting investigation impartially."
"Mere oral statement on questioning or doubting investigation won't do. Our objective is impartial, fair and independent investigation," the bench said, noting that under the court's monitoring even an "ordinary IO can do miracles."
"You (IO) must proceed with investigation. Let us see progress. How investigation has progressed. We direct the IO to produce case diary of investigation," the bench added.
