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

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 24 February 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 168
Judges: M.R. Shah, J., C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can a flawed investigation be corrected even after the trial has begun? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving allegations of assault and kidnapping against a sitting state minister. This judgment clarifies the powers of constitutional courts to ensure fair investigation and trial, even after charges have been framed. The bench, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, delivered the unanimous judgment, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around Anant Thanur Karmuse, a civil engineer, who shared a social media post criticizing a Maharashtra state minister, Mr. Jitendra Awhad, on April 5, 2020. Following this, Mr. Karmuse alleges that he was forcibly taken from his residence by police personnel to the minister’s bungalow, where he was beaten and forced to apologize and delete the post. Subsequently, two FIRs were registered: one against Mr. Karmuse for allegedly posting objectionable content (FIR No. 119 of 2020) and another by Mr. Karmuse regarding the assault and kidnapping (FIR No. 120 of 2020). However, the FIR filed by Mr. Karmuse did not initially name the minister, Mr. Awhad, as an accused.

Dissatisfied with the police investigation, which he believed was biased due to the minister’s influence, Mr. Karmuse filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay seeking transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or another independent agency. While the High Court monitored the investigation, it ultimately dismissed the petition, stating that further investigation was not permissible after the chargesheet had been filed and charges were framed.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court initially monitored the investigation, compelling the state police to file chargesheets. However, the first chargesheet did not name the Minister, Mr. Jitendra Awhad, as an accused. It was only after the High Court’s intervention that Mr. Awhad was included as an accused in a supplementary chargesheet, two years after the incident. Despite this, the High Court dismissed Mr. Karmuse’s writ petition seeking transfer of the investigation to the CBI, stating that the trial had begun after the charges were framed, thus precluding further investigation. The High Court also noted that the medical report indicated simple injuries, not grievous ones as alleged by Mr. Karmuse.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with further investigation by the police. The Supreme Court also considered its constitutional powers under Articles 32 and 226 to ensure fair investigation and trial. The court referred to the following legal provisions:

• Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): “Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub- section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub- sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub- section (2).” This section allows for further investigation even after a police report has been submitted.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Anant Thanur Karmuse):

• The investigation was biased and incomplete due to the influence of the accused Minister.
• The FIR did not initially name the Minister despite clear allegations against him.
• The chargesheet was filed for lesser offenses, not including grievous hurt under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and kidnapping under Section 367 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• Relevant evidence, such as CDR of mobile phones and CCTV footage, was not properly collected.
• Constitutional Courts have the power to order fresh or further investigation to ensure fair trial, even after the commencement of the trial.
• The State itself admitted that further investigation is necessary under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Respondents’ Arguments (State of Maharashtra and Accused):

• The investigation was complete, chargesheets were filed, and charges were framed. Therefore, the case should not be transferred to CBI.
• The allegation of grievous injuries was made for the first time and is not supported by medical evidence.
• The FIR and medical reports indicate simple injuries, not grievous ones.
• CCTV footage had been recovered and was in the custody of the Magistrate.
• Once charges are framed, further investigation is not permissible, as the trial has commenced.
• Transfer of investigation to CBI should only be done in rare cases.
• The State’s change of stand is due to a change in political dispensation and is not permissible.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

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

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On the Power to Transfer Investigation to CBI:

• Himanshu Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., 2022 SCC Online SC 884: The Supreme Court reiterated that investigation may be transferred to the CBI only in “rare and exceptional cases.” (Supreme Court of India)
• State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 571: The power to transfer investigation must be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and in exceptional situations. (Supreme Court of India)
• Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya , (2002) 5 SCC 521: An order directing an enquiry by the CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after considering the material on record, comes to the conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by the CBI or any other similar agency. (Supreme Court of India)
• K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai, (2013) 12 SCC 480: The Court could exercise its constitutional powers for transferring an investigation from the State investigating agency to any other independent investigating agency like CBI only in rare and exceptional cases. (Supreme Court of India)
• Romila Thapar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 753: The accused does not have a say in the matter of appointment of investigating agency. (Supreme Court of India)
• CBI v. Rajesh Gandhi, 1997 Cri LJ 63: No one can insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency. (Supreme Court of India)

On the Power to Order Further Investigation:

• Bharati Tamang Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2013) 15 SCC 578: In case of deficient/unsatisfactory investigation, it is the duty of the Courts to ensure effective conduct of prosecution and the Courts have powers to direct re-investigation in exceptional circumstances. (Supreme Court of India)
• Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254: Courts have to deal with deficiencies in investigation with an iron hand. (Supreme Court of India)
• Ram Jethmalani Vs. Union of India (2011) 8 SCC 1: Courts can constitute Special Investigation Team and also give appropriate directions to the Central and State Governments. (Supreme Court of India)
• Dharam Pal Vs. State of Haryana and Ors., (2016) 4 SCC 160: The constitutional courts can direct for further investigation or investigation by some other investigating agency. Commencement of trial is not an impediment for exercising this power. (Supreme Court of India)
• Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., (2019) 17 SCC 1: The power of the police to further investigate the offence continues right till the stage the trial commences. (Supreme Court of India)
• Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409: Criminal trial does not begin after cognizance is taken, but only after charges are framed. (Supreme Court of India)
• Samaj Parivartan Samudaya v. State of Karnataka , (2012) 7 SCC 407: Criminal trial does not begin after cognizance is taken, but only after charges are framed. (Supreme Court of India)
• Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762: Criminal trial does not begin after cognizance is taken, but only after charges are framed. (Supreme Court of India)
• Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab , (2014) 3 SCC 92: Criminal trial does not begin after cognizance is taken, but only after charges are framed. (Supreme Court of India)
• Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 5 SCC 347: Arriving at the truth and doing substantial justice in a criminal case are more important than avoiding further delay. (Supreme Court of India)

On the Scope of Section 173 CrPC:

• Rama Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 6 SCC 346: The police has a right to “further” investigation under Section 173(8) but not “fresh investigation” or “re-investigation”. (Supreme Court of India)

[TABLE] of Authorities and their Treatment:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court cited Himanshu Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., 2022 SCC Online SC 884* to reiterate that transfer of investigation to CBI is only in rare and exceptional cases.
• The Court cited State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 571* to reiterate that the power to transfer investigation must be exercised sparingly and cautiously.
• The Court cited Dharam Pal Vs. State of Haryana and Ors., (2016) 4 SCC 160* to emphasize that constitutional courts can order further investigation to ensure fair trial, even after the commencement of the trial.
• The Court cited Bharati Tamang Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2013) 15 SCC 578* to emphasize that courts have the power to direct re-investigation in exceptional circumstances to ensure effective conduct of prosecution.
• The Court cited Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., (2019) 17 SCC 1* to highlight that the power of the police to further investigate continues till the trial commences.
• The Court distinguished Rama Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 6 SCC 346*, stating that the court was considering the scope of Section 173 CrPC and not the powers of Constitutional Courts.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to allow further investigation was primarily driven by the need to ensure a fair and just trial. The Court was deeply concerned about the perfunctory nature of the initial investigation and the fact that the main accused, the Minister, was not named in the initial chargesheet. The Court also noted that the State itself admitted that further investigation was necessary. The Court emphasized that the victim has a fundamental right to fair investigation and fair trial and that mere filing of the chargesheet and framing of the charges cannot be an impediment in ordering further investigation if the facts so warrant.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The court rejected the argument that once charges are framed, further investigation is not permissible. The court held that such a view would lead to a travesty of justice.

The Supreme 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.”

Key Takeaways

• Constitutional courts have the power to order further investigation, even after the chargesheet is filed and charges are framed, to ensure a fair trial.
• A flawed or biased initial investigation can be corrected through further investigation.
• The victim’s right to a fair investigation and trial is paramount.
• The commencement of a trial is not an absolute bar to further investigation.
• The state’s admission of the need for further investigation is a significant factor.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State investigating agency to further investigate FIR No. 120 of 2020. The Court left the specifics of the further investigation to the wisdom of the investigating agency. The Court directed that the further investigation be completed within three months and a supplementary report be placed before the Trial Court.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable as no specific amendment is discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the constitutional courts have the power to order further investigation even after a charge sheet is filed and charges are framed, if the initial investigation is found to be flawed or incomplete. This judgment reinforces the principle that a fair trial is dependent on a fair investigation and that the commencement of trial does not limit the powers of constitutional courts to ensure that justice is done. This changes the previous position of law which held that further investigation is not permissible after the trial has commenced.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Anant Thanur Karmuse vs. State of Maharashtra is a significant step towards ensuring fair investigation and trial in criminal cases. By allowing further investigation despite the framing of charges, the Court has emphasized that the pursuit of justice should not be hindered by procedural technicalities. This judgment reinforces the powers of constitutional courts to intervene in cases where the initial investigation is flawed, ensuring that the victim’s right to a fair trial is protected.