RAJ KUMAR
Ranchi, July 7: The Jharkhand High Court today directed the CBI to reinvestigate the matter of murder in the Sapphire International School campus having taken place six years ago.
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi passed the order after hearing arguments of advocate Jitendra S. Singh assisted by advocate Randhir Kumar appearing on behalf Manbahal Mahto, who is father of deceased Binay Kumar Mahto.
Adv Singh pointed out loopholes in the Jharkhand Police investigation and stressed upon the need for investigation from a better agency.
After hearing arguments and considering the entire material which was put before the court, the court inclined to send the matter in the hand of CBI to reinvestigate the matter.
The court raised doubts in the police investigation and asked the CBI to try to complete the probe within eight months.
State counsel Manoj Kumar and assistant solicitor general of union of India Prashant Pallav were present during the hearing.
Binay Mahto was murdered in Sapphire International School campus on February 5, 2016. He was then a class VII student. Police arrested a Hindi teacher of the school along with her husband and two juvenile children.
Police said that the juvenile son of the teacher killed Binay for having love affairs with former’s sister, who was then a class V student. According to police, the teacher’s son, who was then a class XI student of the same school, committed murder after inviting Binay during night hours for Soya Chilli party while other helped her tampering with evidence.
After the trial started, the court granted bail to the teacher and her husband while their children were acquitted from the Juvenile Justice Board.
The parents filed a petition in 2018 after they noticed that two of the four accused were acquitted from the Juvenile Justice Board and two were granted bail and during the trial, the police failed to produce any witness supporting the case of prosecution.
Advocate Singh confirmed the development saying during the CBI probe the trial will remain stayed in the civil court.
During the hearing, the state objected to the probe saying a PIL in the matter filed by Jharkhand Avivavak Manch is pending in the court and in the PIL petitioner is an intervener. On which the advocate said the petition was filed when the police investigation was on and now this petition has been filed after the police investigation is over.
The State also informed that the petitioner had earlier also invoked the door of the Supreme Court for the same demand but the same was not allowed. On which advocate Singh said the petition was withdrawn to take judicial remedy from the appropriate court.
