- JUDEGMENT SUMMARY: Amar NathChaubey v. Union of India and Others
- DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 14th December 2020
- JUDGES: Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari
- PARTIES: Amar NathChaubey (Petitioner)
- Union of India and Others (Respondents)
SUBJECT
The following judgment deals with the filing of Closure Reportin an investigation by police and the grounds thereto. The question before the Supreme Court of India for consideration was whether Closure Report can be filed on the ground of lack or absence of any concrete evidence against the accused.
AN OVERVIEW
1. On 4.12.2015, 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.
2. An F.I.R. No. 378/2015 under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149, I.P.C. was registered the same day at Chaubepur Police Station at 11.15 AM.
3. 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.
4. The petitioner,son of the deceased, approached the Allahabad High Court:
- Complaining of the lackadaisical manner in which the case was being handled by the police due to involvement of powerful political personalities; and
- Seeking mandamus for proper inquiry into the murder including by CBI since investigating officers were being changed frequently.
5. During investigation, a 5th respondent who is a powerful politician namely Sushil Singh (an MLA of the ruling party i.e., BJP) and allegedly the mastermind of the murder was recognised who had a political rivalry with the deceased.
6. On 17.05.2018, the Writ Petition was dismissed by HC accepting the contention of the police that the investigation report would be submitted within eight weeks.
7. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a Criminal Special Leave Petition in Supreme Court.
8. On 20.01.2020, SC asked DGP, UP to file an affidavit regarding status of investigation vis-à-vis R5. DGP filed an affidavit on 22.02.2020 stating that there was no cogent evidence against R5 despite discrete efforts. Investigation against him was therefore closed on 30.01.2019 and report submitted to court.
9. The SC held that Closure Report cannot be filed merely because informant did not supply adequate materials to investigate. A fair investigation is a necessary concomitant of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The SC set aside the closure report as regards the non charge sheeted accused while leaving ituninterfered with regard to charge sheeted accused.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Constitution of India
• Article 14- Equality before law:
The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
• Article 21- Protectionof life and liberty
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Indian Penal Code
• Section 120B- Punishment of criminal conspiracy:
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
- Section 302- Punishment for murder
Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
- Section 147- Punishment for rioting
Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
- Section 148- Rioting, armed with deadly weapon
Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
- Section 149- Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object
If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
ISSUES
The following is the major issueframed by the Supreme Court-
Whether absence or lack of availability of cogent evidence against accused could be a ground for filing a closure report against accused.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
1. The Court has been observant to notice the fact that the investigation was being delayed and has been kept pending since approximately four years i.e., 04.12.2015 to 30.01.2019. The Court paid heed to the point raised by the petitioner which very casually had been ignored by the Trial Court. The Court noticed that the investigation that has been kept pending for so long was quickly closed on being issued a notice by the Court itself. The notice being dated 07.09.18.
2. The Supreme Court did not take the proceedings toomechanically. It rather focused keenly on the things that required attention and keen observation. The Closure Report submitted by the police stated that “there was no concrete evidence of conspiracy against Sushil Singh 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 Sushil Singh in future, action would be taken as per law.” The hon’ble justices pointed out that the closure report was an epic example of the preposterous statement by the police. The bench called it a sham designed to protect the accused BJP MLA rather than being in any way in pursuance of justice.
3. The Court realised that the murder was a result of a long standing political rivalry between the deceased and the politician. The investigation revealed that there were already a number of cases registered against the politician. There were a total of 24 cases which included even charges under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code i.e., murder. Despite all these factors, the police filed a closure report stating as ground the absence of any cogent evidence against Sushil Singh. The Court identified that the entire investigation, also considering the fact that there were regular changing of the investigating officers, was merely a faux investigation process.
4. Considering all these factors and three fact that the respondent number 5 was a powerful politician belonging to the ruling party, the court rightfully appointed Shri SatyarthAnirudhPankaj, IPS, as the senior officer, State of Uttar Pradesh to carry out further investigation in the matter and even have him absolute liberty to choose his team members for the purposes of the investigation.
5. The court also was thoughtful to direct the newly appointed investigation officer to conclude the investigation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order for the same, unless an extension is needed. The Court also issued direction for issuance of the placement of the final investigation report before itself.
CONCLUSION
The approach adopted by the Supreme Court of India is commendable. The apex court has established that the judiciary is independent and dedicated to protecting the rights of the last citizen of the country. The Court had received two closure reports with respect to the investigation against Respondent no. 5, apparently the powerful politician. Despite that, the court went ahead to order fresh investigation and appointed Shri SatyarthPankaj, IPS as the senior officer, State of Uttar Pradesh to proceed with further investigation in the matter. The court has shown remarkable diligence in ensuring justice to the lesser privileged.
To read the original judgment click on the link below!
Click Here
