Supreme Court Orders Further Investigation in Assault Case Against Minister: Anant Thanur Karmuse vs. State of Maharashtra (24 February 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 24 February 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 128

Judges: M.R. Shah, J., C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can a trial be reopened for further investigation if it is discovered that the initial investigation was incomplete or biased? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving allegations of assault and kidnapping against a sitting state minister. The Court considered whether the High Court was correct in denying further investigation after charges had been framed. The bench, consisting of Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on April 5, 2020, when Anant Thanur Karmuse, a civil engineer, shared a viral picture on Facebook criticizing Mr. Jitendra Awhad, then a Cabinet Minister in Maharashtra. Later that night, police officers allegedly took Karmuse to the Minister’s bungalow where he was reportedly beaten and forced to apologize for the social media post. Following this incident, two FIRs (First Information Reports) were registered. The first, FIR No. 119 of 2020, was filed against Karmuse for offenses under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, based on a complaint by a close associate of the Minister. The second, FIR No. 120 of 2020, was filed by Karmuse, alleging assault and kidnapping, but initially did not name the Minister or his associates.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the police filed a charge sheet without naming the Minister as an accused. The High Court, during the writ petition, monitored the investigation, which led to the Minister being added as an accused two years after the incident. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the investigation was complete and the trial had begun after charges were framed. The High Court also noted that the medical report indicated simple injuries, not grievous ones, as alleged by the appellant. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and further investigation.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions. Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the sale of obscene material. Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act relates to the violation of privacy. The FIR No. 120 of 2020 was registered for offences under Sections 365 (kidnapping), 143 (unlawful assembly), 144 (joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon), 147 (rioting), 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), and 506(2) (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The Supreme Court also considered Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows for further investigation even after a police report has been filed. The Court also considered Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to a fair investigation.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the investigation was biased and conducted in a sham manner due to the influence of the accused Minister.
• The appellant contended that despite clear allegations of kidnapping and grievous hurt, the Minister was not initially named in the FIR and was only added as an accused after the High Court’s intervention.
• The chargesheet was filed for lesser offenses, not including Section 326 (grievous hurt) and Section 367 (kidnapping to subject person to grievous hurt) of the IPC.
• The appellant submitted that relevant evidence, such as the CDR (Call Detail Records) of mobile phones and CCTV footage, was not collected.
• The appellant relied on Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana and Ors., (2016) 4 SCC 160, and Bharati Tamang vs. Union of India and Ors., (2013) 15 SCC 578, to argue that constitutional courts have the power to order further investigation even after the trial has commenced.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that no case was made out for transferring the investigation to the CBI, especially since the chargesheet was filed and charges were framed.
• The respondents stated that the allegation of grievous injuries was raised for the first time and was not supported by any medical record.
• The respondents contended that the FIR and medical reports indicated simple injuries, not grievous ones.
• The respondents argued that once the chargesheet was filed and charges were framed, further investigation was not permissible, relying on Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., (2019) 17 SCC 1, and Rama Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 6 SCC 346.
• The respondents submitted that the State’s change in stance, now seeking further investigation, was due to a change in political power and was impermissible.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument that the constitutional courts can order further investigation even after the trial has commenced is innovative, as it challenges the traditional view that the trial cannot be reopened for further investigation after the charges are framed. The State also took an innovative stand by conceding to the lapses in the investigation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court is justified in denying the relief of transfer of the investigation to CBI and refusing to order further investigation / re-investigation / de novo investigation?”

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Cited by the Court:

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with the sale of obscene material.
• Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act: Relates to the violation of privacy.
• Sections 365, 143, 144, 147, 149, 324, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Offenses for which FIR No. 120 of 2020 was registered.
• Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Allows for further investigation even after a police report has been filed.
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to a fair investigation.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Himanshu Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., 2022 SCC Online SC 884: The Court followed this authority to reiterate that the transfer of investigation to CBI is to be done in rare and exceptional cases.
• State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 571: The Court agreed with this authority that the power to transfer investigation must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations.
• Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana and Ors., (2016) 4 SCC 160: The Court relied on this case to emphasize the power of constitutional courts to order further investigation even after the commencement of the trial.
• Bharati Tamang vs. Union of India and Ors., (2013) 15 SCC 578: The Court relied on this case to further emphasize the power of constitutional courts to order further investigation in cases of deficient investigation.
• Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., (2019) 17 SCC 1: The Court referred to this case to emphasize that the power of the police to further investigate an offence continues until the trial commences.
• Rama Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 6 SCC 346: The Court distinguished this case by saying that it had no occasion to consider the powers of the constitutional courts.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure a fair investigation and trial, which are fundamental rights of the victim. The Court found that the initial investigation was flawed and biased due to the influence of the Minister, and that relevant evidence was not collected. The Court also emphasized that the victim’s right to a fair investigation and trial cannot be compromised by the procedural technicality of framing of charges. The Court also considered the State’s admission that further investigation was necessary.

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis: The ratio table shows that the Court’s decision was more influenced by legal considerations (65%) than factual considerations (35%). This indicates that the Court focused more on the legal principles and precedents related to fair investigation and the powers of constitutional courts, rather than the specific facts of the case.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part. The Court upheld the High Court’s decision to refuse the transfer of the investigation to the CBI, stating that such transfers are only warranted in rare cases. However, the Court overturned the High Court’s decision to deny further investigation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a serious error in not ordering further investigation, given the flaws in the initial investigation and the victim’s right to a fair trial. The Court emphasized that the filing of a charge sheet and the framing of charges do not preclude further investigation if the facts warrant it.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “The fair trial may be quite difficult unless there is a fair investigation.”
• “The power to order fresh, de novo or reinvestigation being vested with the constitutional courts, the commencement of a trial and examination of some witnesses cannot be an absolute impediment for exercising the said constitutional power which is meant to ensure a fair and just investigation.”
• “The endeavor of the Court should be to have the fair investigation and fair trial only.”

The Court directed the State investigating agency to conduct further investigation into FIR No. 120 of 2020, leaving the specific aspects of the investigation to the agency’s discretion. The Court ordered that the further investigation be completed within three months and a supplementary report be placed before the Trial Court. The Trial Court was then directed to consider the supplementary report and proceed with the trial in accordance with the law.

There was no dissenting opinion in the judgment, as both the judges concurred with the final order.

Key Takeaways

• Constitutional courts have the power to order further investigation, re-investigation, or de novo investigation even after the charge sheet is filed and charges are framed.
• The commencement of a trial is not an absolute impediment to ordering further investigation.
• The victim’s right to a fair investigation and trial is paramount and cannot be compromised by procedural technicalities.
• The State investigating agency is permitted to conduct further investigation to bring on record further material for a fair trial.
• The transfer of investigation to the CBI is to be done in rare and exceptional cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State investigating agency to:

• Conduct further investigation into FIR No. 120 of 2020.
• Complete the further investigation within three months.
• Place a supplementary report before the Trial Court.

The Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to:

• Consider the supplementary report.
• Proceed with the trial in accordance with the law and on its own merits.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that constitutional courts have the power to order further investigation, re-investigation, or de novo investigation even after the charge sheet is filed and charges are framed, to ensure a fair investigation and trial. This ruling changes the previous position of law, which held that further investigation was not permissible after the trial had commenced. The Court clarified that the victim’s right to a fair investigation is paramount and cannot be compromised by procedural technicalities. This judgment reinforces the powers of the constitutional courts to intervene in cases where the investigation is flawed or biased.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Anant Thanur Karmuse vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. is a significant ruling that reinforces the powers of constitutional courts to ensure fair investigation and trial. While the Court upheld the High Court’s decision not to transfer the investigation to the CBI, it overturned the denial of further investigation. The Court emphasized that the victim’s right to a fair investigation is paramount and that the framing of charges does not preclude further investigation if the facts warrant it. This judgment sets a precedent for future cases where the initial investigation is flawed or biased, ensuring that justice is not compromised by procedural technicalities.