Awungshi Chirmayo vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi

1 NON­REPORTABLE 2024 INSC 249 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.__________ OF 2024 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.8034 OF 2018) AWUNGSHI CHIRMAYO AND ANR.                    ...APPELLANTS VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI  AND OTHERS                                               …RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T  Leave granted.  2. The appellants before this Court are the two cousins of the deceased who was found dead in her rented accommodation in House No.424­B, Ground Floor, Chirag Delhi on 29.05.2013. The deceased was a 25 years old young girl who was a permanent resident of Manipur and at the relevant time was working in a call centre at Delhi. The post mortem was conducted next day on Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by 30.05.2013 which recorded following observations:  Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2024.03.23 11:09:22 IST Reason: 2 “a) Part of nose is missing over right side and piece of it is attached on the left side. b) Nibbling marks present over both the upper eye lids c) wound size of 5 cm is present over dorsum   of   right   foot;   margins   are irregular and show nibbling marks d)   all   wounds   are   post   mortem   in origin” The cause of death could not be ascertained in the post mortem report.   3. Some puzzling facts of this case leading to this appeal are that   the   First   Information   Report   (for   short   ‘FIR’)   was   only registered by the police on 31.05.2013, initially under Section 306   of   Indian   Penal   Code   (for   short   ‘IPC’),   against   unknown persons, when there was blood spattered all over the room and the   face   of   the   deceased   was   smashed,   as   we   are   given   to understand.  It was only later converted to a case under Section 302 of IPC.  Initially, investigation was conducted by the Crime Branch and a second post mortem report was submitted again with no clear cause of death determined.   4. The body of the deceased was discovered on 29.05.2013 by the landlord of the tenanted premises who alerted PCR at 11am 3 on the same day and this was recorded as DD No. 20A. The post­ mortem   of   the   deceased   was   conducted   on   30.05.2013   by   a Senior   Resident   of   the   All  India  Institute   of   Medical  Sciences (AIIMS) who recorded injuries on the body of deceased, while opinion about the cause of death was not given and the viscera analysis report and other reports from Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), were yet to come.  5. The FIR No. 253 of 2013 was registered on 31.05.2013 at Police Station, Malviya Nagar against unknown accused persons under  Section   306   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code,   1860   (hereafter “IPC”). The investigation was transferred to the Crime Branch, Malviya Nagar the next day, i.e., 01.06.2013 and pursuant to representations by the appellants, offence under Section 302 of IPC   was   added.   On   04.06.2013   a   second   post­mortem   was conducted by a Medical Board of three doctors from Maulana Azad Medical College & Lok Nayak Hospital, and noted eleven injuries on the person of deceased­victim, however, the opinion regarding the cause of death was not given due to the pendency of viscera chemical analysis and histopathology reports.  4 6. Meanwhile,   the   appellants   herein   had   filed   Writ   Petition (Criminal) No. 1364 of 2013 before the Delhi High Court praying for   direction   for   the   investigation   to   be   given   to   the   Central Bureau of Investigation (for short ‘CBI’), who is also respondent No. 3 in the present matter. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, an order dated 11.04.2017 was passed recording the submission made by the counsel for Government of NCT that the final report which was submitted on 24.02.2015 under Section 173 of CrPC before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (South), has been agreed to be withdrawn and matter will be subjected to further investigation.   7. The High Court ultimately dismissed this Writ Petition for reasons which are four­fold. Firstly, it was noted that polygraph test had been conducted on the suspects Raj Kumar and Amit Sharma on 26.12.2013, however, no opinion could be formed about   their   involvement.     Secondly,   the   DNA   of   the   semen samples recovered from the undergarment of the deceased did not match with the DNA samples of the accused.   Thirdly, the boyfriend of the deceased had not joined investigation, he was absconding and could not be traced.  Fourthly, despite the post 5 mortem   conducted   on   the   deceased,   there   was   no   conclusive cause of death which could be ascertained.   8. While considering all these factors, the High Court was of the opinion that simply because the premises of the landlord had an access to the room of the deceased it could not be said that they   were   guilty   of   committing   the   crime,   the   relevant observations of  the High Court are as follows:  “19.   The   investigation   has   been carried   out   by   the   investigating agency seemingly without any bias. Nothing has emerged on record if the landlord Raj Kumar and his brother­ in­law   Amit   Sharma   were   having strong connection with any politician to   influence   the   investigation.   The petitioners   have   not   furnished clinching   evidence   to,   prima   facie, infer the  involvement  of  Raj Kumar and Amit Sharma in the crime. Their suspicion   is   based   upon   ‘no evidence’. Merely because, the landlord and his brother­   in­law   had   access   to   the victim’s   room   by   scaling   the   7   feet grill,   it   cannot   be   inferred   at   this stage   that   it   was   they   who   had committed the crime. 6 20. Since all efforts have been made by   the   Crime   Branch   to   solve   the case, handing over the investigation to CBI, at this stage, would serve no purpose. Investigation to CBI can be ordered only in exceptional situation and such an order is not to be passed as a routine merely because, a party has levelled vague allegations. [‘State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights’, 2010 (3) SCC 571].” 9. This order of the High Court is presently under challenge before this Court, where the appellants pray that a thorough investigation be done by CBI. Vide Order dated 05.02.2019, this Court had constituted Special Investigation Team (SIT) to monitor the investigation. The SIT so constituted submitted two status reports   on   25.07.2019   and   21.10.2019.   All   the   same,   the investigation which has been conducted by the police and later by the SIT yielded no conclusive result. The SIT in its report has reached the following conclusion: “From   the   investigation   conducted   so   far, circumstantial   evidences   suggest   that   Ms.   A.S. Reingamphi   @   A.S.   Solam   D/o   Sh.   A.S. Chihanpam  r/o   Village­Choithar, Ukhrul­District, Manipur   had   committed   suicide   by   consuming some poison/medicine, though the viscera reports did   not   reveal   presence   of   any   common posion/medicine in the exhibits. Till now there is 7 no evidence on record to support the allegation of murder   or   abetment   of   suicide   or   foul   play   or commission of any other offence in this case.  ­Sd­ Dy. Commissioner of Police Crime (Cyber & FICN), Delhi 10. The   present   appellants,   who   are   close   relatives   of   the deceased and  are residents of the State of Manipur, have always claimed that it is a case of rape and murder, and the police is trying   to   shield   the   accused.     The   deceased   comes   from   a “Ukhrul” District in the State of Manipur, which is far away from Delhi.   The kith and kin of the deceased, who are before this Court are only praying for an effective investigation so that the culprits can be apprehended and brought to justice.      11. Apparently there seems to be no reason for a young girl of 25 years of age to commit suicide.  Prima facie   it does not seem to be  a case   of   suicide.   The   crime   scene   shows   that  blood   was spattered on the floor and the bed sheet was completely drenched in blood. It appears to be a homicidal death and therefore the culprits must be apprehended.   8 12. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General of this Court, in his usual fairness submits that he has no objection, if the investigation in the present case is handed over to the CBI. 13. In a seminal judgment reported as      State of West Bengal and   Others   vs   Committee   for   Protection   of   Democratic  this Court Rights, West Bengal and others (2010) 3 SCC 571, has discussed in detail inter alia the circumstances under which the   Constitutional   Courts   would   be   empowered   to   issue directions for CBI enquiry to be made. This Court noted that the power   to   transfer   investigation   should   be   used   sparingly, however, it could be used for doing complete justice and ensuring there is no violation of fundamental rights. This is what the Court said in Para 70: “ …Insofar   as   the   question   of 70 issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that   such   an   order   is   not   to   be passed   as   a   matter   of   routine   or merely because a party has levelled some   allegations   against   the   local police.  This   extraordinary   power must   be   exercised   sparingly, 9 cautiously   and   in   exceptional situations   where   it   becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and   international   ramifications   or where   such   an   order   may   be necessary for doing complete justice and   enforcing   the   fundamental rights…         emphasis supplied  14. The powers of this Court for directing further investigation regardless of the stage of investigation are extremely wide. This can be done even if the chargesheet has been submitted by the prosecuting agency. In the case of  Bharati Tamang v. Union of India and Others (2013) 15 SCC 578 ,   this Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the widow of late Madan Tamang who was killed during a political clash and directed investigation by the CBI which would be monitored by the Joint Director, CBI. The following observations were made in Para 44: “ 44 …Whether   it   be   due   to   political rivalry or personal vengeance or for that   matter   for   any   other   motive   a murder   takes   place,   it   is   the responsibility of the police to come up to   the   expectation   of   the   public   at large and display that no stone will remain unturned to book the culprits 10 and   bring   them   for   trial   for   being dealt with under the provisions of the criminal   law   of   prosecution.   Any slackness displayed in that process will not be in the interest of public at large   and   therefore   as   has   been pointed   out   by   this   Court   in   the various   decisions,   which   we   have referred to in the earlier paragraphs, we find that it is our responsibility to ensure that the prosecution agency is reminded   of   its   responsibility   and duties   in   the   discharge   of   its functions   effectively   and   efficiently and   ensure   that   the   criminal prosecution   is   carried   on   effectively and   the   perpetrators   of   crime   are duly   punished   by   the   appropriate court of law.” 15. This Court has expressed its strong views about the need of Courts to be alive to genuine grievances brought before it by ordinary citizens as has  been held in    Zahira Habibulla H. . Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) 4 SCC 158 16. It is to observe that unresolved crimes tend to erode public trust in institutions which have been established for maintaining law   and   order.   Criminal   investigation   must   be   both   fair   and effective.   We   say   nothing   on   the   fairness   of   the   investigation 11 appears to us, but the fact that it has been ineffective is self evident. The kith and kin of the deceased who live far away in Manipur   have   a   real   logistical   problem   while   approaching authorities in Delhi, yet they have their hope alive, and have shown trust and confidence in this system. We are therefore of the considered view that this case needs to be handed over to CBI, for a proper investigation and also to remove any doubts in the minds of the appellants, and to bring the real culprits to justice. 17. In view of the discussion made above, the order of the Delhi High   Court   dated   18.05.2018,   dismissing   the   prayer   of   the present appellants to transfer the investigation to CBI is hereby set aside. The appeal is hereby allowed and we direct that CBI to hold enquiry in the matter. The case shall be transferred from SIT to the CBI.  The SIT, which has so far conducted the investigation in   the   matter,   will   hand   over   all   the   relevant   papers   and documents   to   CBI   for   investigation.     After   a   thorough investigation, CBI will submit its complete investigation report or 12 charge   sheet   before   the   concerned   court   as   expeditiously   as possible.  Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.       …….....………………………….J.                           [J.K. MAHESHWARI] ………...……….………………….J.            [SUDHANSHU DHULIA] NEW DELHI; MARCH 22, 2024.