Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe in Custodial Death Case: Union of India vs. Junu Gayary (26 July 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 26 July 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 808

Judges: M.R. Shah, J., A.S. Bopanna, J.

Can a High Court order a CBI investigation based on a District Judge’s report in a case of alleged custodial death? The Supreme Court addressed this question while hearing an appeal against the Gauhati High Court’s order for a CBI investigation into the death of Someswar Gayari. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court was justified in ordering a CBI probe and awarding compensation based on the findings of the District & Sessions Judge’s inquiry. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, who delivered a unanimous judgment.

Case Background

The case began when Junu Gayary, the widow of Someswar Gayari, filed a writ petition in the Gauhati High Court. She alleged that her husband was taken from his relative’s house by army personnel on August 26, 2003, and later found dead on August 30, 2003, with the army claiming he died in an encounter. The army denied these claims, stating that Someswar Gayari was killed in an encounter.

The High Court directed the District & Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon, to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances of Someswar Gayari’s death. The District Judge’s report concluded that Someswar Gayari was indeed taken into custody by the army and that his death occurred while in their custody, contradicting the army’s claim of an encounter. The High Court, based on this report, ordered a CBI investigation and directed compensation to be paid to the widow.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Gauhati High Court initially directed a judicial inquiry by the District & Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon, into the death of Someswar Gayari. The District Judge’s report concluded that the deceased was in the custody of the Indian Army from the time he was picked up until his death, contradicting the Army’s claim of an encounter. Based on this report, the High Court ordered a CBI investigation into the matter and directed the Union of India and the Commandant, 8th Madras Regiment to pay Rupees three lakhs as compensation to the widow. The Union of India filed a review petition which was dismissed. The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The High Court found that the actions of the army, as indicated in the District Judge’s report, violated this right. The High Court directed the registration of a criminal case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with punishment for murder. The Supreme Court also referred to the case of General Officer Commanding v. CBI [ (2012) 6 SCC 228 ] regarding the procedure to be followed when a member of the armed forces is accused of a crime.

Arguments

The appellants, Union of India and others, argued against the High Court’s order for a CBI investigation and the compensation awarded. The main points of their submission were:

• The army personnel were acting within their duties and the death occurred during an encounter.
• The High Court should not have relied solely on the District Judge’s report without further examination.

The respondent, Junu Gayary, did not appear before the Supreme Court. The High Court’s decision was based on the District Judge’s inquiry report, which concluded that Someswar Gayari was in army custody when he died, contradicting the army’s claim of an encounter. The High Court emphasized the violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but addressed the following implicit issues:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in ordering a CBI investigation based on the District Judge’s report.
2. Whether the compensation awarded by the High Court was adequate.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authority:

• General Officer Commanding v. CBI [(2012) 6 SCC 228] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited to emphasize the procedure to be followed when a member of the armed forces is accused of a crime.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court referred to General Officer Commanding v. CBI [(2012) 6 SCC 228] to reiterate the procedure for deciding whether a trial should be by a criminal court or a court martial when an army personnel is accused of a crime. The court emphasized the need for the competent authority in the army to make a decision within eight weeks of the charge sheet being filed.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the findings of the District & Sessions Judge, which were accepted by the High Court. The key points that weighed in the mind of the Court were:

• The deceased, Someswar Gayari, was picked up by army personnel from his relative’s house.
• He was in the custody of the Indian Army from the time of his apprehension until his death.
• The army’s claim that his death occurred during an encounter was not supported by the evidence.
• There was a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the factual findings of the District Judge’s report, which indicated that the army was responsible for the death of Someswar Gayari while he was in their custody. This factual determination was crucial in establishing the violation of the right to life under Article 21, which is a legal principle. The court also considered the need for a fair and thorough investigation, which led to the decision to order a CBI probe.

The Supreme Court did not consider any alternative interpretations, as the factual findings of the District Judge were not challenged by the appellants. The Court’s decision was based on the factual findings and the legal principle of the right to life.

The Court’s decision was clear: the death of Someswar Gayari was a result of actions by the army while he was in their custody, and this violated his right to life. The Court found that the High Court’s direction for a CBI investigation was justified and that the compensation awarded was inadequate.

The reasons for the decision were:

• The District Judge’s report established that the deceased was in army custody and not killed in an encounter.
• The High Court rightly relied on this report.
• There was a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
• A CBI investigation was necessary to ensure a fair and thorough probe.
• The compensation awarded by the High Court was inadequate, and the Supreme Court enhanced it.

The Supreme Court stated:

• “The High Court has rightly directed to register a criminal case for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC with respect to the death of Someswar Gayari alias Sombrom and looking to the gravity of the offence committed the High Court has rightly directed the CBI to undertake the investigation.”
• “The death of the deceased was in the hands of army and an attempt, however, has been made by the army to show the death of the deceased as if in the course of encounter between the army and the deceased.”
• “Therefore, in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and to do substantial justice to the deceased and his family members, we enhance the amount of compensation to rupees five lakhs…”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the factual findings of the District Judge’s report, which indicated that the army was responsible for the death of Someswar Gayari while he was in their custody. This factual determination was crucial in establishing the violation of the right to life under Article 21, which is a legal principle. The court also considered the need for a fair and thorough investigation, which led to the decision to order a CBI probe.

The implications for future cases are that in cases of custodial death, the courts are likely to rely on the findings of judicial inquiries and may order further investigation by an independent agency like the CBI. This case also reinforces the importance of the right to life and the responsibility of the state to protect it.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced. The Court reiterated the existing legal principles related to the right to life and the need for a fair investigation in cases of custodial death.

Key Takeaways

• In cases of custodial death, the courts are likely to rely on the findings of judicial inquiries.
• Courts may order further investigations by an independent agency like the CBI to ensure a fair probe.
• The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution is paramount, and the state has a responsibility to protect it.
• Compensation for custodial deaths may be enhanced by the courts to ensure justice.
• The competent authority in the army must decide on the mode of trial (criminal court or court martial) within eight weeks of the charge sheet being filed.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The CBI is directed to undertake and conclude the investigation at the earliest.
• The competent authority in the army shall decide within eight weeks of the charge sheet being filed whether the trial will be by a criminal court or a court martial.
• If the decision is to try the case by a court martial, the proceedings should commence immediately and be concluded expeditiously.
• If the decision is to try the case by a criminal court, the CBI shall apply to the Central Government for sanction within four weeks of the decision, and the Central Government shall decide on the sanction within eight weeks of the application.
• The enhanced compensation of rupees five lakhs to be deposited by the appellants with the Registrar General of the Gauhati High Court within a period of four weeks.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of custodial death, the courts can rely on the findings of judicial inquiries and order a CBI investigation to ensure a fair and thorough probe. The Supreme Court also enhanced the compensation, indicating a move towards greater accountability in such cases. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it reinforces the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Union of India, upholding the Gauhati High Court’s order for a CBI investigation into the custodial death of Someswar Gayari. The Court enhanced the compensation to rupees five lakhs, emphasizing the violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and the need for a thorough investigation and accountability in cases of custodial death.