AMAR NATH CHAUBEY vs. UNION OF INDIA

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.6951 OF 2018

VERSUS

O R D E R One Shri Ram Bihari Chaubey, the father of the petitioner, was   shot   dead   at   his   residence   in   Village   Shrikanthpur, Chaubepur,   Varanasi   in   the   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh,   on 04.12.2015 at around 7.15 AM.  An F.I.R. No. 378/2015 under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149, I.P.C. was registered the same day at Chobepur Police Station at 11.15 AM.   Four unknown assailants were stated to have come on a motor cycle.   Two of them entered the residence and shot the deceased, while the two others waited outside, after which they all escaped.  Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2020.12.14 16:31:00 IST Reason: 2. The   petitioner,   son   of   the   deceased,   approached   the Allahabad High Court complaining of the lackadaisical manner in 1 which   the   police   was   investigating   because   some   powerful political   personalities   were   also   involved.     The   investigating officers   were   also   being   changed   with   regularity   seeking   a mandamus for a proper inquiry into the murder of his father including by the C.B.I.   The High Court called for a progress report and also required the Chief Secretary to file his affidavit in the matter.  The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order of the   High   Court   dated   17.05.2018   disposing   the   writ   petition, accepting   the   contention   of   the   police     that   the   investigation would be concluded expeditiously and report will be submitted before the competent court within a period of eight weeks.    3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State of Uttar Pradesh and for respondent no.5. On 29.06.2017 charge   sheet   was   submitted   against   one   Raju   alias   Nagender Singh son of late Ramji Singh, Ajay Singh and Shani Singh both sons of Narayan Singh, citing 21 witnesses.   The charge sheet stated that the name of respondent no.5 had transpired during investigation   as   having   conspired   in   the   killing   after   which Section 120B I.P.C. was also added.  The charge sheeted accused 2 Raju alias Nagender Singh confessed that apart from the others named by him, respondent no.5 in conspiracy had the murder planned and executed.  The investigation was thus kept pending against Manish Singh, Dabloo Singh and respondent no.5.  The police in the case diary noting dated 17.02.2017 recorded that on basis of confidential information from the police informer, that respondent no.5 had given a  “supari”  of Rs. Five lacs for murder of the deceased.   Political rivalry existed between the deceased and respondent no.5 on account of assembly elections as also panchayat   elections.   It   further   contained   noting   that   the   real person behind the incident was respondent no.5 based on very confidential information, having serious ramifications. The case diary noting dated 06.04.2017 records that the police party went to   landmark   tower   to   arrest   Ajay   Singh   and   Shani   Singh. Respondent   no.5   was   present   there   and   questioned   why   the police had come.  Respondent no.5 demanded the production of arrest warrant against the concerned persons and required the investigating officer to give in writing that the suspect was being taken for interrogation.  Raju alias Nagender Singh after intensive interrogation disclosed that with co­accused Ajay Singh, he had gone to meet respondent no.5, disclosing the manner in which 3 the murder was committed by him and his accomplices.  The case diary noting dated 29.06.2017 records that investigation against Dabloo Singh and Manish Singh and respondent no.5 were in progress.  Respondent no.5 vide Annexure P.5 letter no. 4/2017 wrote   to   the   Principal   Secretary   that   he   was   being   falsely implicated and the matter be properly investigated, if required from the C.B.I.  4. The   Sub­Inspector   of   Police   submitted   a   progress   report before the High Court on 11.10.2017 that the investigation up  to that   date   revealed   the   involvement   of   Ajay   Singh,   Raju   alias Nagender Singh, Shani Singh, Manish Singh, Dabloo Singh and respondent   no.5   as   a   conspirator.   Charge   sheet   had   been submitted against Ajay Singh, Raju alias Nagender Singh and Shani   Singh   and   investigation   with   regard   to   Dabloo   Singh, Manish Singh and respondent no.5 is still pending.   It further stated that raids were conducted for arresting others including respondent   no.5.     From   the   material   collected   during investigation it was apparent that the murder was committed due to political rivalry by hatching a conspiracy effectively with the 4 help of respondent no.5 and that the police were trying to collect more   credible   materials.     Another   affidavit   was   filed   on 16.05.2018   before   the   High   Court,   by   one   Shri   Devender Chaubey,   the   In­charge   Chief   Secretary,   disclosing   that respondent no.5  had  24 criminal  cases  against him  including under Section 302 IPC.  In five cases final report had been filed in absence of credible evidence. In nine cases respondent no.5 had been charge sheeted but was acquitted.  Five criminal trials are still pending against respondent no.5.   He had also been put behind  bars   under   the   provisions   of   National   Security   Act  by order dated 11.11.1998.  It concluded that the allegations against respondent no.5 were under investigation.         5. This   Court   issued   notice   in   the   present   matter   on 07.09.2018.     On   20.01.2020,   this   Court  directed   the   Director General of Police, U.P. to file an affidavit with regard to the status of the investigation vis­à­vis respondent no.5.   An affidavit was filed   by   the   D.G.P.   on   22.02.2020   stating   that   there   was   no cogent evidence against respondent no.5 despite discreet efforts. Investigation of the case was therefore closed on 30.01.2019 and 5 report submitted in the concerned court along with other police papers on 04.06.2019 with regard to accused Ajay Singh, Shani Singh,   Raju   alias   Nagender   Singh   only   and   no   further investigation was pending against any person.   The trial court summoned the complainant for evidence on several dates, but the complainant had not appeared. 6. We have considered the matter. The F.I.R. was registered on 04.12.2015.     Eight   investigating   officers   have   been   changed. Respondent   no.5   suo   moto   sought   impleadment   in   the   writ petition filed in the High Court.  An investigation which had been kept   pending   since   04.12.2015   was   promptly   closed   on 30.01.2019 after this Court had issued notice on 07.09.2018. The affidavit of  the  Director General of  Police,  U.P.  not being satisfactory, on 26.10.2020 this Court required the respondents to file copy of the closure report stated to have been filed before the court concerned.   The affidavit filed by the  Circle Officer, Pindara, Varanasi dated 31.10.2020, pursuant to our order dated 26.10.2020   encloses   the   closure   report   dated   02.09.2018,   the supervision   note   of   the   Superintendent   of   Police,   Rural   dated 6 17.12.2018 and the closure report dated 30.01.2019 submitted in court.   We have gone through the same.   It simply states that there was no concrete   evidence of conspiracy against respondent no.5 and that the informant had not placed any materials before the police direct or indirect with regard to the conspiracy.  As and when materials will be found against respondent no.5 in future, action would be taken as per law. No credible evidence was found against Manish Singh and Dabloo Singh.  7. We are constrained to record that the investigation and the closure report are extremely casual and perfunctory in nature. The investigation and closure report do not contain any material with   regard   to   the   nature   of   investigation   against   the   other accused including respondent no.5 for conspiracy to arrive at the conclusion   for   insufficiency   of   evidence   against   them.     The closure   report   is   based   on   the   ipse   dixit   of   the   Investigating Officer.   The supervision note of the Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), in the circumstances leaves much to be desired. The investigation appears to be a sham, designed to conceal more than   to   investigate.     The   police   has   the   primary   duty   to 7 investigate on receiving report of the commission of a cognizable offence.   This is a statutory duty under the Code of Criminal Procedure apart from being a constitutional obligation to ensure that peace is maintained in the society and the rule of law is upheld and applied.   To say that further investigation was not possible as the informant had not supplied adequate materials to investigate,  to our  mind,  is a preposterous   statement,  coming from the police.   8. The police has a statutory duty to investigate into any crime in   accordance   with   law   as   provided   in   the   Code   of   Criminal Procedure.  Investigation is the exclusive privilege and prerogative of the police which cannot be interfered with.   But if the police does not perform its statutory duty in accordance with law or is remiss in the performance of its duty, the court cannot abdicate its   duties   on   the   precocious   plea   that   investigation   is   the exclusive prerogative of the police.   Once the conscience of the court is satisfied, from the materials on record, that the police has   not   investigated   properly   or   apparently   is   remiss   in   the investigation, the court has a bounden constitutional obligation 8 to ensure that the investigation is conducted in accordance with law.  If the court gives any directions for that purpose within the contours   of   the   law,   it   cannot   amount   to   interference   with investigation.  A fair investigation is, but a necessary concomitant of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and this Court has the bounden obligation to ensure adherence by the police. 9. In   Manohar   Lal   Sharma   vs.   Principal   Secretary   and , (2014) 2 SCC 532, this court observed as follows : ors.   “24.   In   the   criminal   justice   system   the investigation of an offence is the domain of the police.   The   power   to   investigate   into   the cognizable   offences   by   the   police   officer   is ordinarily not impinged by any fetters. However, such power has to be exercised consistent with the   statutory   provisions   and   for   legitimate purpose. The courts ordinarily do not interfere in the   matters   of   investigation   by   police, particularly, when the facts and circumstances do not indicate that the investigating officer is not   functioning   bona   fide.   In   very   exceptional cases, however, where the court finds that the police   officer   has   exercised   his   investigatory powers   in   breach   of   the   statutory   provision putting the personal liberty and/or the property of the citizen in jeopardy by illegal and improper use   of   the   power   or   there   is   abuse   of   the investigatory   power   and   process   by   the   police officer or the investigation by the police is found to be not bona fide or the investigation is tainted 9 with   animosity,   the   court   may   intervene   to protect  the   personal  and/or   property   rights   of the citizens. 25.   Lord Denning   has described the role of the police thus: “In  safeguarding   our   freedoms,   the   police play a vital role. Society for its defence needs a well­led,   well­trained   and   well­disciplined force of police whom it can trust: and enough of them to be able to prevent crime before it happens, or if it does happen, to detect it and bring the accused to justice. The   police,   of   course,   must   act   properly. They   must  obey   the   rules  of  right  conduct. They must not extort confessions by threats or promises.   They   must   not   search   a   man’s house without authority. They must not use more force than the occasion warrants.” 26. One of the responsibilities of the police is protection of life, liberty and property of citizens. The   investigation   of   offences   is   one   of   the important duties the police has to perform. The aim of investigation is ultimately to search for truth and bring the offender to book. xxx xxx xxx 39. …In the rare and compelling circumstances referred   to   above,   the   superior   courts   may monitor   an   investigation   to   ensure   that   the investigating agency conducts the investigation in a free, fair and time­bound manner without any external interference.” 10. The trial is stated to have commenced against the charge sheeted accused, and the informant summoned to give evidence. 10 In the facts of the case, we direct that further trial shall remain stayed.   The   closure   reports   dated   02.09.2018,   17.12.2018 culminating in the report dated 30.01.2019 are partly set aside insofar as the non­charge sheeted accused are concerned only. Those already charge sheeted, calls for no interference. 11. We hereby appoint Shri Satyarth Anirudh Pankaj, I.P.S. as the senior officer, State of Uttar Pradesh to carry out further investigation in the matter through a team of competent officers to be selected by him of his own choice.  The State shall ensure the   availability   of   such   officers.   The   investigation   must   be concluded within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, unless extension is required, and the final report   be   placed   before   this   Court.     The   Director   General   of Police, Uttar Pradesh shall do the needful. 11 12. List immediately after two months for further orders. …………...................J. [R.F. NARIMAN] …………...................J. [NAVIN SINHA] …………...................J. [KRISHNA MURARI] NEW DELHI DECEMBER 14, 2020. 12