Supreme Court Orders Fresh Probe in Law Student’s Death Case: Neetu Kumar Nagaich vs. State of Rajasthan (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 16 September 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 692
Judges: R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, and Indira Banerjee, JJ.

Can a flawed police investigation be set aside by the Supreme Court to ensure justice? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the suspicious death of a law student. The Court, dissatisfied with the initial investigation by the State Police, ordered a fresh probe by a new team of investigators. This decision underscores the Court’s commitment to upholding fair investigation as a crucial aspect of justice under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, and Indira Banerjee, with the opinion authored by Justice Navin Sinha.

Case Background

The petitioner, Neetu Kumar Nagaich, sought justice for her son, a 21-year-old law student at the National Law University, Jodhpur, who was found dead on the railway tracks on the morning of August 14, 2017. The deceased had gone out with friends on the evening of August 13, 2017, to a restaurant near the University. Initially, the University authorities and the police treated the death as a suicide or an accident, failing to register a First Information Report (FIR) promptly. The FIR was only registered on June 29, 2018, after persistent efforts by the petitioner and her husband. The petitioner was dissatisfied with the investigation conducted by the State Police, alleging a lack of promptness, failure to secure the crime scene, and a failure to examine crucial witnesses and digital evidence. The petitioner sought a transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) due to the perceived deficiencies in the State Police’s investigation.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioner’s husband had previously approached the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, dissatisfied with the slow pace and manner of the police investigation. The High Court disposed of the petition on February 24, 2020, directing the Investigating Officer to file the result of the investigation, while allowing the petitioner to challenge the same. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court on May 20, 2020, due to the lack of progress in the investigation. The Supreme Court, on July 8, 2020, directed that the investigation be completed within two months and a final report be filed before the Court. Following this, the investigating officer filed a closure report, which the petitioner contested, arguing that it was unsatisfactory and raised more questions than it answered.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder. The FIR was registered under this section, indicating that the police initially suspected a case of homicide.
• Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the procedure for police to inquire and report on suicide, etc. The inquest proceedings were initiated under this section.
• Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section pertains to the police report after the completion of the investigation. The police had submitted a closure report under this section.
• Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section provides for further investigation by the police even after a report has been submitted under Section 173(2).
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty. The Court emphasized that a fair investigation is a part of the constitutional right guaranteed under this article.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The investigation by the State Police was deficient and lacked promptness. The crime scene was not sealed, and crucial witnesses were not examined properly.
• The police failed to collect and analyze relevant evidence, including CCTV footage, mobile locations, and WhatsApp chats.
• The initial conclusion of suicide or accidental death was baseless, given the nature and number of injuries on the deceased’s body, which indicated homicide.
• The closure report filed by the police was unsatisfactory and raised more questions than it answered, indicating a lack of thorough investigation.
• The petitioner sought a de novo investigation by an independent agency like the CBI to ensure a fair and impartial probe.
• The petitioner argued that the police were trying to protect someone and were not conducting a fair investigation.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of Rajasthan):

• The State contended that the inquest proceedings under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were commenced promptly.
• A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted, and a large number of witnesses were examined.
• The police claimed that all possibilities were investigated, and necessary evidence was collected and analyzed, but the offenders could not be traced.
• The State argued that there was no deficiency in the investigation and no occasion for the Court to direct further or fresh investigation.
• The State asserted that the closure report could be filed before the court concerned, and the law could take its course.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the investigation conducted by the State Police was deficient and unsatisfactory, warranting interference by the Court?
2. Whether the Court could order a de novo investigation by an independent agency, given the circumstances of the case?
3. Whether the closure report submitted by the police was acceptable, or should it be set aside?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied upon the following authorities and legal provisions:

Cases:

Legal Provisions:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Kashmeri Devi vs. Delhi Administration, (1988) Suppl. SCC 482*: The Court used this case to support its decision that a fresh investigation can be ordered when the initial investigation is not objective.
• Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254*: The Court relied on this case to justify its power to order de novo investigation in exceptional circumstances to prevent miscarriage of justice.
• Bharati Tamang vs. Union of India, (2013) 15 SCC 578*: This case was used to emphasize that courts must act firmly when deficiencies in investigation are apparent.
• Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158*: The Court cited this case to highlight that the State’s power should not be used to shield offenders.
• Pooja Pal vs. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 135*: This case was used to reiterate the constitutional courts’ power to direct further investigation or reinvestigation.
• Rattiram v. State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 516*: The Court referred to this case to stress the importance of victimology in the criminal justice system.
• Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 160*: The Court used this case to affirm that the power to order fresh investigation can be exercised even after the commencement of the trial.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring a fair and impartial investigation into the death of the petitioner’s son. The Court was deeply troubled by the deficiencies in the initial investigation, the lack of promptness, and the failure to collect crucial evidence. The Court was also concerned that the police were attempting to pass off the death as accidental or suicidal, despite evidence suggesting homicide. The Court’s primary concern was to uphold the principles of justice and ensure that the truth was revealed. The Court was also mindful of the constitutional rights of the victim and the need to maintain public confidence in the rule of law.

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis: The Court’s decision was influenced by both factual and legal considerations. The factual aspects, such as the deficiencies in the investigation and the nature of injuries on the deceased’s body, weighed heavily in the Court’s decision-making process (60%). The legal principles, such as the constitutional right to a fair investigation and the power of the court to order de novo investigations, also played a significant role (40%).

The Court’s reasoning was based on several key points:

• “The casualness and callousness of the police is reflected from the fact that neither was the crime scene sealed nor necessary investigation done with promptitude by proper examination of relevant witnesses including CCTV footage, and digital footprints, mobile locations etc. and WhatsApp chats during the relevant period of time on the day of occurrence.”
• “A fair investigation is as much a part of a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution as a fair trial, without which the trial will naturally not be fair.”
• “The entire investigation and the closure report therefore lack bonafide. The interest of justice therefore requires a de novo investigation to be done, to sustain the confidence of the society in the rule of law irrespective of who the actors may be.”

The Court rejected the State’s arguments that the investigation was sufficient and that there was no need for further investigation. The Court also rejected the closure report, finding it to be unsatisfactory and a hasty action. The Court emphasized the importance of a fair and impartial investigation as a part of the constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also considered the victim’s perspective and the need to maintain public confidence in the rule of law.

Key Takeaways

• Constitutional courts have the power to order a de novo investigation by an independent agency when the initial investigation is found to be deficient or biased.
• A fair and impartial investigation is a fundamental aspect of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• The police must conduct investigations promptly, thoroughly, and objectively, ensuring that all relevant evidence is collected and analyzed.
• Closure reports submitted by the police must be based on a thorough investigation and cannot be accepted if they are found to be unsatisfactory or lacking in bonafide.
• The courts will not hesitate to intervene to ensure justice and maintain public confidence in the rule of law.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

• The closure report was set aside.
• A de novo investigation was ordered to be conducted by a fresh team of investigators, headed by a senior police officer of the State.
• The new team must consist of efficient personnel well-versed in the use of modern investigation technology.
• No officer who was part of the investigating team leading to the closure report shall be part of the new team.
• The fresh investigation must be concluded within a maximum period of two months from the date of the judgment.
• The police report should be filed before the court concerned, whereafter the matter shall proceed in accordance with law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a constitutional court has the power to order a de novo investigation by an independent agency when the initial investigation is found to be deficient or biased. This judgment reinforces the principle that a fair investigation is an essential part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court’s decision to order a de novo investigation highlights its commitment to ensuring justice and maintaining public confidence in the rule of law. The judgment also clarifies that the courts can intervene when the police fail to conduct a thorough and objective investigation, even if a closure report has been filed. This case does not change the previous position of law but rather reinforces it by applying it to the facts of the case.

Conclusion

In the case of Neetu Kumar Nagaich vs. The State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court of India ordered a fresh investigation into the death of a law student, setting aside the closure report filed by the State Police. The Court found the initial investigation to be deficient and lacking in objectivity, emphasizing the importance of a fair and impartial investigation as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court directed a de novo investigation by a new team of investigators, highlighting its commitment to ensuring justice and maintaining public trust in the legal system.