LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a case of an unnatural death with inconclusive investigation warrants a transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Awungshi Chirmayo & Anr. vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Judgment Date: 22 March 2024
Date of the Judgment: 22 March 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 249
Judges: J.K. Maheshwari, J. and Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
When a young woman is found dead under mysterious circumstances, what steps should be taken to ensure a thorough and impartial investigation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the death of a 25-year-old woman in Delhi. The Court, concerned about the inconclusive nature of the police investigation, has ordered a transfer of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). This decision highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring justice and maintaining public trust in the investigative process. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.
Case Background
The case revolves around the death of a 25-year-old woman, originally from Manipur, who was working at a call center in Delhi. She was found dead in her rented accommodation in Chirag Delhi on May 29, 2013. The landlord discovered her body and alerted the police. The initial post-mortem, conducted on May 30, 2013, revealed several unusual injuries, including a missing part of her nose, nibbling marks on her eyelids, and a wound on her foot, all determined to be post-mortem in origin. However, the cause of death could not be ascertained.
The police registered a First Information Report (FIR) on May 31, 2013, initially under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with abetment of suicide, against unknown persons. This was later converted to a case under Section 302 of the IPC, pertaining to murder. The investigation was first handled by the Crime Branch, and a second post-mortem was conducted, which also failed to determine the cause of death.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 29 May 2013 | Body of the deceased discovered in her rented accommodation in Chirag Delhi by the landlord, who alerted the PCR at 11 am. Recorded as DD No. 20A. |
| 30 May 2013 | First post-mortem conducted by a Senior Resident of AIIMS. Injuries noted, but cause of death not determined. |
| 31 May 2013 | FIR No. 253/2013 registered at Police Station, Malviya Nagar, under Section 306 IPC against unknown persons. |
| 01 June 2013 | Investigation transferred to the Crime Branch, Malviya Nagar and Section 302 of IPC added. |
| 04 June 2013 | Second post-mortem conducted by a Medical Board from Maulana Azad Medical College & Lok Nayak Hospital. Eleven injuries noted, but cause of death not determined. |
| 26 December 2013 | Polygraph test conducted on suspects Raj Kumar and Amit Sharma, but no conclusive opinion formed. |
| 24 February 2015 | Final report submitted under Section 173 of CrPC before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (South). |
| 11 April 2017 | Government of NCT counsel submits that the final report will be withdrawn and matter will be subjected to further investigation. |
| 18 May 2018 | Delhi High Court dismissed the Writ Petition seeking CBI investigation. |
| 05 February 2019 | Supreme Court constituted Special Investigation Team (SIT) to monitor the investigation. |
| 25 July 2019 | SIT submitted first status report. |
| 21 October 2019 | SIT submitted second status report concluding that the deceased committed suicide. |
| 22 March 2024 | Supreme Court orders CBI enquiry in the matter. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellants, who are cousins of the deceased, filed a Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1364 of 2013 before the Delhi High Court, seeking a direction to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). During the pendency of this petition, the Government of NCT submitted that the final report submitted on 24.02.2015 would be withdrawn for further investigation. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, citing the inconclusive polygraph tests, the mismatch of DNA samples, the absconding boyfriend of the deceased, and the lack of a conclusive cause of death. The High Court also noted that the landlord and his brother-in-law could not be implicated solely based on their access to the deceased’s room.
The appellants then challenged this order in the Supreme Court, praying for a CBI investigation. The Supreme Court constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to monitor the investigation. However, the SIT also failed to produce conclusive results, suggesting that the deceased had committed suicide, although no common poison or medicine was found in the viscera reports.
Legal Framework
The case involves the application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
- Section 302, IPC: This section defines the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
- Section 306, IPC: This section deals with abetment of suicide. It states, “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Arguments
The appellants, who are close relatives of the deceased, argued that the case was one of rape and murder, and that the police were attempting to shield the accused. They emphasized the unusual circumstances of the death, including the blood spatter and the injuries on the body, which they felt indicated a homicidal death rather than suicide. The appellants contended that the local police investigation was ineffective and biased, necessitating a transfer to the CBI for a fair and thorough investigation.
The Additional Solicitor General, representing the Government, submitted that he had no objection if the investigation were handed over to the CBI.
The High Court, while dismissing the writ petition, had observed that:
- The investigation was seemingly carried out without bias.
- There was no evidence to suggest that the landlord and his brother-in-law had any political connections to influence the investigation.
- The suspicion against the landlord and his brother-in-law was based on “no evidence.”
- Merely because the landlord and his brother-in-law had access to the victim’s room, it could not be inferred that they had committed the crime.
- Handing over the investigation to CBI at this stage would serve no purpose.
The SIT, in its report, concluded that the deceased had committed suicide by consuming poison/medicine, despite the viscera reports not revealing the presence of any common poison/medicine.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ Submission: Ineffective and Biased Police Investigation |
|
| Appellants’ Submission: Need for CBI Investigation |
|
| Government’s Submission |
|
| High Court’s Observation |
|
| SIT’s Findings |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the investigation into the death of the deceased was conducted effectively and impartially, and if not, whether the case should be transferred to the CBI for further investigation.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court:
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the investigation into the death of the deceased was conducted effectively and impartially, and if not, whether the case should be transferred to the CBI for further investigation. | The Court found the investigation to be ineffective, and ordered a transfer of the case to the CBI for a proper investigation. The Court noted that the investigation had not yielded conclusive results and that the kith and kin of the deceased had a real logistical problem while approaching authorities in Delhi. The Court also emphasized the need to remove any doubts in the minds of the appellants and to bring the real culprits to justice. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others [2010 (3) SCC 571] | Supreme Court of India | Discussed in detail the circumstances under which Constitutional Courts would be empowered to issue directions for CBI enquiry. | Power to transfer investigation should be used sparingly, but could be used for doing complete justice and ensuring no violation of fundamental rights. |
| Bharati Tamang v. Union of India and Others [2013 (15) SCC 578] | Supreme Court of India | Allowed the Writ Petition and directed investigation by the CBI, which would be monitored by the Joint Director, CBI. | Responsibility of the police to come up to the expectation of the public and ensure that no stone will remain unturned to book the culprits. |
| Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat [2004 (4) SCC 158] | Supreme Court of India | Expressed strong views about the need of courts to be alive to genuine grievances brought before it by ordinary citizens. | Courts must be sensitive to the genuine grievances of ordinary citizens. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court, after considering all the facts and circumstances, set aside the order of the Delhi High Court and directed that the CBI conduct an inquiry in the matter. The Court emphasized that unresolved crimes erode public trust in institutions and that criminal investigations must be both fair and effective. The Court noted that the investigation conducted by the police and later by the SIT had been ineffective.
The Court also took into consideration the logistical difficulties faced by the relatives of the deceased, who reside in Manipur, in pursuing the matter in Delhi. The Court held that the case needed to be handed over to the CBI to remove any doubts in the minds of the appellants and to bring the real culprits to justice.
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ submission for CBI investigation | Accepted. The Court ordered a CBI inquiry. |
| Government’s no-objection to CBI investigation | Acknowledged and considered in the decision to transfer the case. |
| High Court’s view that the investigation was unbiased | Overruled. The Supreme Court found the investigation to be ineffective. |
| SIT’s conclusion of suicide | Rejected. The Supreme Court found the investigation to be inconclusive. |
The Court viewed the authorities as follows:
- State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others [2010 (3) SCC 571]: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the power to transfer investigation to CBI should be used sparingly but can be used for doing complete justice and ensuring no violation of fundamental rights.
- Bharati Tamang v. Union of India and Others [2013 (15) SCC 578]: The Court cited this case to highlight the responsibility of the police to ensure that no stone is left unturned to book the culprits.
- Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat [2004 (4) SCC 158]: This case was used to underscore the need for courts to be sensitive to the genuine grievances of ordinary citizens.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to transfer the investigation to the CBI was primarily driven by concerns about the ineffectiveness of the previous investigations and the need to maintain public trust in the justice system. The Court highlighted the unusual nature of the death, the lack of conclusive findings from multiple post-mortem examinations, and the logistical challenges faced by the deceased’s family in pursuing the case. The Court also emphasized the importance of ensuring a fair and impartial investigation to bring the real culprits to justice.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Ineffectiveness of Previous Investigations | 40% |
| Need to Maintain Public Trust | 30% |
| Unusual Nature of Death | 20% |
| Logistical Challenges Faced by Family | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The court’s reasoning was influenced more by the factual circumstances of the case (60%), such as the inconclusive post-mortem reports, the unusual injuries, and the ineffective investigations, than by purely legal considerations (40%).
Issue: Was the investigation effective and impartial?
Initial police investigation deemed INEFFECTIVE
SIT investigation also INCONCLUSIVE
Unusual circumstances of death and injuries
Need to maintain public trust and ensure justice
Decision: Transfer investigation to CBI
Key Takeaways
- Unresolved crimes can significantly erode public trust in law enforcement institutions.
- Criminal investigations must be both fair and effective to ensure justice.
- Courts have the power to direct further investigation, regardless of the stage of the investigation, to ensure justice is served.
- The CBI can be entrusted with investigations in exceptional circumstances to maintain public confidence.
- The logistical challenges faced by families in pursuing justice should be taken into consideration.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the following:
- The order of the Delhi High Court dated 18.05.2018 was set aside.
- The investigation was transferred from the SIT to the CBI.
- The SIT was directed to hand over all relevant papers and documents to the CBI.
- The CBI was directed to conduct a thorough investigation and submit its report or charge sheet before the concerned court as expeditiously as possible.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases where there is an ineffective investigation by the local police and the SIT, the Supreme Court can direct the transfer of the investigation to CBI to ensure a fair, effective and impartial investigation, especially in cases that have the potential to erode public trust in the justice system. This case reinforces the principle that the judiciary has the power to intervene to ensure that justice is served, and that no stone is left unturned to bring the real culprits to justice.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to transfer the investigation to the CBI underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring fair and effective investigations, especially in cases where there are doubts about the impartiality or effectiveness of the local police. This judgment serves as a reminder that the pursuit of justice must be relentless and that the courts will not hesitate to intervene to protect the rights of citizens and maintain public trust in the legal system.