Supreme Court Orders Further Investigation in Murder Case Due to Inadequate Police Inquiry: Amar Nath Chaubey vs. Union of India (2020)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court can order further investigation into a criminal case if the initial police investigation is deemed inadequate and perfunctory.

CASE TYPE: Criminal

Case Name: Amar Nath Chaubey vs. Union of India and Others

Judgment Date: 14 December 2020

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 14 December 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 969

Judges: R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, Krishna Murari

Can the Supreme Court intervene in a criminal investigation if it believes the police have not conducted a thorough inquiry? This question was at the heart of a recent case where the Supreme Court of India found the police investigation into a murder to be inadequate. The Court, in this case, directed further investigation by a senior police officer.

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, and Krishna Murari, addressed a petition concerning the murder of Shri Ram Bihari Chaubey. The Court found the police investigation to be “casual and perfunctory” and ordered further investigation.

Case Background

On December 4, 2015, Shri Ram Bihari Chaubey was shot dead at his residence in Uttar Pradesh. An FIR was registered the same day, citing four unknown assailants on a motorcycle. The petitioner, Amar Nath Chaubey, the son of the deceased, alleged that the police investigation was not being conducted properly because of the involvement of powerful political figures. He sought a proper inquiry, including by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Allahabad High Court disposed of the writ petition after the police assured the court that the investigation would be concluded expeditiously. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the High Court’s order, approached the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioner, dissatisfied with the police investigation, approached the Allahabad High Court, seeking a proper inquiry into his father’s murder, including by the CBI. The High Court, however, disposed of the petition, accepting the police’s assurance that the investigation would be completed expeditiously. The petitioner then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s order.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court highlighted the statutory duty of the police to investigate cognizable offenses under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court also emphasized that while investigation is the prerogative of the police, the courts have a constitutional obligation to ensure fair investigation, especially when the police are remiss in their duties. This obligation stems from Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality before the law and protection of life and personal liberty, respectively.

Arguments

The petitioner argued that the police investigation was not being conducted properly due to the involvement of powerful political figures and that the investigation was being deliberately delayed. The State of Uttar Pradesh, on the other hand, contended that the investigation was being carried out diligently and that there was no evidence to implicate respondent no. 5.

Respondent no. 5, who was alleged to be the main conspirator, claimed that he was being falsely implicated and requested a proper investigation, including by the CBI, to clear his name.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the Court was:

✓ Whether the police investigation was adequate and conducted in accordance with the law.

✓ Whether the closure report submitted by the police was justified.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following case to emphasize the role of the court in ensuring fair investigation:

• Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Principal Secretary and ors., (2014) 2 SCC 532 – The Supreme Court quoted this case to highlight that while the investigation of an offense is the domain of the police, the courts can intervene in exceptional cases where the police investigation is not bona fide or is tainted with animosity. It also emphasized that the aim of investigation is to search for truth and bring the offender to book.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after examining the case materials, concluded that the investigation and closure report were inadequate. The Court noted that the investigation did not contain any material regarding the nature of the investigation against the accused, including respondent no. 5. The Court also found that the closure report was based on the Investigating Officer’s opinion without any concrete evidence.

The Court emphasized that the police have a statutory duty to investigate crimes and that this duty is not just a statutory obligation but also a constitutional one. The Court observed that the police cannot simply close a case by stating that the informant did not supply adequate materials.

The Court stated, “We are constrained to record that the investigation and the closure report are extremely casual and perfunctory in nature.”

The Court further noted, “The investigation appears to be a sham, designed to conceal more than to investigate.”

The Court also stated, “To say that further investigation was not possible as the informant had not supplied adequate materials to investigate, to our mind, is a preposterous statement, coming from the police.”

The Court partly set aside the closure reports concerning the non-charge-sheeted accused and appointed Shri Satyarth Anirudh Pankaj, I.P.S., as the senior officer to carry out further investigation. The Court directed that the investigation be concluded within two months and a final report be placed before the Court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the inadequacy and perfunctory nature of the police investigation. The Court was not satisfied with the closure report, which it found to be based on the Investigating Officer’s opinion without any concrete evidence. The Court also noted the frequent changes in investigating officers and the prompt closure of the investigation after the Supreme Court issued notice.

Key Takeaways

✓ The Supreme Court can intervene in a criminal investigation if it finds the police investigation to be inadequate or perfunctory.

✓ The police have a statutory and constitutional duty to conduct thorough and fair investigations.

✓ Closure reports must be based on concrete evidence, not just the opinion of the Investigating Officer.

✓ This case highlights the importance of ensuring that investigations are conducted properly and that the rule of law is upheld.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed Shri Satyarth Anirudh Pankaj, I.P.S., to carry out further investigation through a team of competent officers. The investigation must be concluded within two months, and a final report must be placed before the Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court has the power to order further investigation in a criminal case if it finds the initial police investigation to be inadequate, perfunctory, or not conducted in accordance with the law. This case reinforces the Court’s role in ensuring fair investigation and upholding the rule of law.

Conclusion

In Amar Nath Chaubey vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court demonstrated its commitment to ensuring fair and thorough investigations. By ordering further investigation, the Court emphasized that the police cannot simply close cases without proper inquiry and that the courts have a constitutional duty to intervene when necessary to uphold justice.