caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Amar Nath Chaubey vs Union Of India on 14 December, 2020Author: Navin Sinha
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.6951 OF 2018
AMAR NATH CHAUBEY …PETITIONER (S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
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
2.
Date: 2020.12.14
16:31:00 IST
Reason:
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
ors., (2014) 2 SCC 532, this court observed 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
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
Comments