The apex court of India categorically clears the doubt in this case titled Amar Nath Chaubey vs Union of India that closure report cannot be filed merely because informant did not supply adequate materials to investigate.
Amar Nath Chaubey Vs Union of India Clarifies Doubts on Police Closure Report
Panchkula (AJRI) the Supreme
Court of India in case titled Amar
Nath Chaubey vs Union of India [SLP (CRL.) NO. 6951 of 2018]
on December 14, 2020 maintained that a closure report cannot be filed merely on
the ground that the investigation was not possible as the informant had not
supplied adequate materials to investigate.
The three Judge Bench of
Apex Court headed by RF Nariman comprising of Justice Navin Sinha and Justice
Krishna Murari set aside the closure reports against some accused in a murder
case and observed, “A
fair investigation is a necessary concomitant of Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. The Court observed that it is the statutory as well as
constitutional duty of the police to investigate on receiving report of the
commission of a cognizable offence.”
In the para 1 of their judgment wherein Bench is
observed that, “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.”
Further, the Bench observed in para 2 that, “The
petitioner, son of the deceased, approached the Allahabad High Court
complaining of the lackadaisical manner in which the police was investigating
because some powerful 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.”
Also, the Bench then observes in para 3 that, “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 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 n. 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 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 co-accused Ajay Singh, he had gone to meet
respondent no.5, disclosing the manner in which 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.
The Bench then explained in para 4 that, “The
Sub-Inspector 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 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 In-charge 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.”
To be sure, it is then revealed in para 5 that:
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
vis-à-vis 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
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.
The Bench then observes in para 6 that, “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 motu 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 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.
While slamming the police investigation and the
closure report, the Bench then, more significantly, without mincing any words
states upfront in para 7 that, 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 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.
Most significantly, the Bench then minces no words
to state squarely, simply and straight in para 8 that, “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 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.
Briefly stated, para 9 then while citing a recent
relevant case law states that, In Manohar
Lal Sharma vs. Principal Secretary and ors., (2014) 2 SCC 532,
this Court referred as follows:
“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 with
animosity, the court may intervene to protect the personal and/or property
rights of the citizens.
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.
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
time-bound manner without any external interference.”
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
The para 10 of
the Judgment says that, “The trial is stated to have commenced against the
charge sheeted accused, and the informant summoned to give evidence. 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 non-charge sheeted accused are
concerned only. Those already charge sheeted, calls for no interference.
The Para 11 states that, “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.
The last para 12 then
stipulates that, List immediately after two months for further orders.
The meaning thereby that the apex court of India categorically clears the doubt in this case titled Amar Nath Chaubey vs Union of India that closure report cannot be filed merely because informant did not supply adequate materials to investigate. The police must always follow this directive whenever it is confronted with such situations in future.