LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the investigation of alleged killings of tribals in Chhattisgarh should be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
CASE TYPE: Criminal Writ Petition
Case Name: Himanshu Kumar and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Judgment Date: 14 July 2022
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 14 July 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 615
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J. and J.B. Pardiwala, J.
Can allegations of a brutal massacre warrant a CBI investigation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving alleged killings of tribals in Chhattisgarh. The court ultimately declined to transfer the investigation to the CBI, finding no merit in the petitioner’s claims. This judgment highlights the court’s stance on the necessity of credible evidence for ordering a CBI investigation and the implications of filing false charges.
Case Background
The case revolves around alleged massacres that occurred on 17th September 2009 and 1st October 2009 in the villages of Gachhanpalli, Gompad, and Belpocha in the Dantewada district of Chhattisgarh. The petitioners, including Himanshu Kumar, who claimed to run an NGO for tribal welfare, and relatives of the victims, alleged that the Chhattisgarh Police, Special Police Officers (SPOs), the Salwa Judum (a vigilante group), and paramilitary forces were responsible for the killings. They sought a CBI investigation and compensation for the victims and their families.
The petitioners claimed that the victims suffered brutal violence, including mutilation and murder, and that their homes were looted and burned. They also alleged that similar incidents had occurred in the past, which were taken up by the National Human Rights Commission. The State of Chhattisgarh refuted these allegations, stating that the incidents were a result of encounters with Naxalites and that the complaints were fabricated by Naxal sympathizers. The State also pointed out that some of the complaints were filed with significant delays and in a uniform format, raising suspicions of manipulation.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 17 September 2009 | Alleged massacre in Gachhanpalli. |
| 17 September 2009 | Alleged incident in Singanpalli. |
| 1 October 2009 | Alleged massacre in Gompad and Belpocha. |
| 18 September 2009 | FIR No. 04/2009 registered at PS Bhejji regarding Gachhanpalli incident. |
| 20 September 2009 | FIR No. 10/2009 registered at PS Chintagufa regarding Singanpalli incident. |
| 25 November 2009 | FIR No. 05/2009 registered at PS Bhejji regarding Gompad incident. |
| 8 January 2010 | FIR No. 01/2010 registered at PS Bhejji based on Soyam Rama’s complaint. |
| 21 February 2010 | FIR No. 06/2010 registered at PS Bhejji based on Madvi Hadma’s complaint. |
| 22 February 2010 | FIR No. 07/2010 registered at PS Bhejji based on Komram Lachcha’s complaint. |
| 15 February 2010 | Supreme Court directs recording of statements of petitioners. |
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:
- Article 32 of the Constitution of India: This article grants the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
- Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Defines giving false evidence.
- Section 192 of the IPC: Defines fabricating false evidence.
- Section 193 of the IPC: Provides punishment for giving or fabricating false evidence.
- Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Specifies the procedure for prosecution for contempt of lawful authority, offenses against public justice, and offenses relating to documents given in evidence.
- Section 211 of the IPC: Deals with false charges of offenses made with the intent to injure.
- Section 340 of the CrPC: Outlines the procedure for cases mentioned in Section 195 of the CrPC, including the power of a court to initiate an inquiry into offenses committed in relation to court proceedings.
Arguments
Petitioners’ Submissions:
- The petitioners argued that the killings were a result of brutal attacks by the Chhattisgarh Police, SPOs, Salwa Judum activists, and paramilitary forces.
- They contended that the State of Chhattisgarh and the police had not taken adequate action despite eyewitness accounts.
- They sought a CBI investigation, claiming it was the only way to ensure justice.
Respondents’ Submissions:
- The State of Chhattisgarh refuted the allegations, stating that the incidents were a result of encounters with Naxalites.
- They argued that the complaints were fabricated by Naxal sympathizers to derail the security forces’ operations.
- They pointed out that the FIRs had been investigated, and charge sheets had been filed.
- The Union of India argued that the petition was a motivated attempt to malign the security forces and that the petitioners should be held guilty of perjury.
Sub-Submissions:
| Main Submission | Petitioner’s Sub-Submission | Respondent’s Sub-Submission |
|---|---|---|
| Need for CBI Investigation | Local police are biased and ineffective; CBI is the only hope for justice. | State police have already investigated and filed charge sheets; CBI probe is unwarranted. |
| Nature of Killings | Security forces committed brutal massacres targeting innocent tribals. | Killings occurred during encounters with Naxalites; security forces acted in self-defense. |
| Credibility of Complaints | Complaints are genuine and based on eyewitness accounts. | Complaints are fabricated, delayed, and in a uniform format, indicating manipulation by Naxal sympathizers. |
| Role of Security Forces | Security forces are perpetrators of violence and human rights abuses. | Security forces are combating Naxalism and protecting the state; allegations are false and demoralizing. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues:
- Whether a case has been made out by the writ petitioners for the investigation of the two incidents through the CBI?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether a case has been made out by the writ petitioners for the investigation of the two incidents through the CBI? | No. The Court rejected the plea for a CBI investigation. | The Court found that the State police had already investigated the FIRs and filed charge sheets. The petitioners failed to demonstrate any infirmities in the investigation or present credible evidence to warrant a CBI probe. The statements of the petitioners recorded by the District Judge did not support the allegations in the writ petition. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Used |
|---|---|---|
| State of West Bengal and others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal, (2010) 3 SCC 571 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize that a CBI investigation should not be ordered routinely and only in exceptional cases where necessary to provide credibility or enforce fundamental rights. |
| Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya & Anr., (2002) 5 SCC 521 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to support that a CBI inquiry should be ordered only when the court finds a prima facie case. |
| K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai, (2013) 12 SCC 480 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to reiterate that the power to transfer an investigation to the CBI should be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases. |
| Romila Thapar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 753 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to reiterate that the accused does not have a say in the appointment of an investigating agency. |
| CBI & another v. Rajesh Gandhi and another, 1997 Cr.L.J 63 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to support that no one can insist that an offense be investigated by a particular agency. |
| K. Karunakaran v. T.V. Eachara Warrier and another, AIR 1978 SC 290 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the procedure under Section 340 CrPC and the considerations for initiating an inquiry. |
| Baban Singh and another v. Jagdish Singh and others, AIR 1967 SC 68 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the nature of false evidence and the application of Sections 191 and 192 of the IPC. |
| Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam, (1971) 1 SCC 774 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize that prosecution for perjury should be ordered only when expedient in the interest of justice and not for minor inaccuracies. |
| Chandrapal Singh and Others v. Maharaj Singh and Another, (1982) 1 SCC 466 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain that acceptance or rejection of evidence is not a sufficient ground to allege falsity. |
| R.S. Sujatha v. State of Karnataka and Others, (2011) 5 SCC 689 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to reiterate that inquiry or contempt proceedings should be initiated in exceptional circumstances where perjury is deliberately committed. |
| S.P. Kohli v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, AIR 1978 SC 1753 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to support that there must be a prima facie case of falsehood before sanctioning prosecution. |
| Muthu Karuppan, Commissioner of Police, Chennai v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi and another, (2011) 5 SCC 496 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize that prosecution for false evidence should be ordered only when there is a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood. |
| Pritish v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 1 SCC 253 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain that preliminary inquiry under Section 340 CrPC is not mandatory before filing a complaint. |
| M.S. Sheriff and Another v. State of Madras and Others, AIR 1954 SC 397 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to support that no expression on guilt or innocence should be made while passing an order under Section 340 CrPC. |
| Aarish Asgar Qureshi v. Fareed Ahmed Qureshi and another, (2019) 18 SCC 172 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize the need for deliberate and intentional false statements with unimpeachable evidence for initiating proceedings under Section 340. |
| Sharad Pawar v. Jagmohan Dalmiya, (2010) 15 SCC 290 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to show a conflicting view that a preliminary inquiry and opportunity for hearing are necessary under Section 340 CrPC. |
| State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh, (2020) 12 SCC 96 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to highlight the conflict between Pritish and Sharad Pawar and the referral to a larger bench. |
| M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur, AIR 1967 SC 528 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to clarify that Section 195 CrPC does not bar action under Section 211 IPC if there is no proceeding in any court. |
| Santokh Singh & Ors. v. Izhar Hussan & Anr., (1973) 2 SCC 406 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the essential ingredients of an offense under Section 211 IPC. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Petitioners’ plea for CBI investigation | Rejected. The Court found no merit in the plea, stating that the State police had already investigated the FIRs and filed charge sheets. |
| Petitioners’ claim of brutal massacres by security forces | Disbelieved. The Court noted that the charge sheets indicated that the killings were done by Naxalites, not the security forces. |
| Respondents’ argument that the complaints were fabricated | Accepted. The Court noted the delayed complaints, their uniform format, and the statements of petitioners before the District Judge, which contradicted the allegations in the writ petition. |
| Respondents’ contention that the petition was a motivated attempt to malign the security forces | Upheld. The Court agreed that the petition was an attempt to derail security operations and lower the morale of the forces. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court relied on the authorities to establish that:
- A CBI investigation should not be ordered routinely but only in exceptional circumstances.
- The accused does not have a say in the appointment of the investigating agency.
- There must be a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood to initiate perjury proceedings.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:
- Lack of Credible Evidence: The Court found that the petitioners failed to provide credible evidence to support their allegations against the security forces. The statements of the petitioners recorded by the District Judge contradicted their claims in the writ petition.
- Completion of Investigation: The Court noted that the State police had already investigated the FIRs and filed charge sheets, indicating that the investigation was underway.
- Fabricated Complaints: The Court was suspicious of the delayed complaints, their uniform format, and the lack of cooperation from the petitioners, suggesting that the complaints were fabricated by Naxal sympathizers.
- Protection of Security Forces: The Court emphasized the importance of protecting the morale and credibility of the security forces, who are engaged in combating Naxalism.
- Abuse of Process: The Court viewed the petition as an attempt to abuse the legal process, derail security operations, and provide a shield for Naxalites.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Lack of Credible Evidence | 30% |
| Completion of Investigation | 25% |
| Fabricated Complaints | 20% |
| Protection of Security Forces | 15% |
| Abuse of Process | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning
Key Takeaways
- A CBI investigation will not be ordered routinely and requires credible evidence.
- Statements made by petitioners before a judicial officer are taken seriously and can undermine the petitioner’s case.
- Courts are wary of petitions that appear to be motivated by an attempt to malign security forces or derail their operations.
- False charges and fabricated evidence can lead to significant penalties, including costs and potential criminal proceedings.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the State of Chhattisgarh/CBI to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law, including potential action under Section 211 of the IPC, regarding the false charges and fabricated evidence presented in the case. The Court also imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the petitioner no. 1, Himanshu Kumar, to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority.
Development of Law
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court reiterated that a CBI investigation should not be ordered routinely and requires credible evidence. The Court also underscored that false charges and fabricated evidence would be dealt with seriously, including the imposition of costs and potential criminal proceedings.
Change in Law: This case reinforces the existing legal principles regarding the requirements for a CBI investigation and the consequences of filing false charges, rather than introducing any new legal principles.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Himanshu Kumar and others, refusing to order a CBI investigation into the alleged killings of tribals in Chhattisgarh. The Court found no merit in the petitioners’ claims, noting that the State police had already investigated the FIRs and filed charge sheets. The Court also imposed exemplary costs on the petitioner, highlighting the seriousness of filing false charges and attempting to mislead the court. This judgment underscores the importance of credible evidence and the protection of security forces in the context of anti-Naxal operations.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
- Child Category: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
- Child Category: Section 340, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
- Child Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Child Category: Section 191, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Child Category: Section 192, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Child Category: Section 193, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Child Category: Section 211, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Child Category: Writ Jurisdiction
- Child Category: CBI Investigation
- Child Category: Perjury
Parent Category: Constitution of India
- Child Category: Article 32, Constitution of India
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Himanshu Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh case?
A: The main issue was whether the investigation of alleged killings of tribals in Chhattisgarh should be transferred to the CBI.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court refused to transfer the investigation to the CBI and imposed costs on the petitioner.
Q: Why did the Supreme Court refuse a CBI investigation?
A: The Court found that the State police had already investigated the FIRs and filed charge sheets. The petitioners failed to present credible evidence to warrant a CBI probe.
Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment reinforces the principle that a CBI investigation should not be ordered routinely and requires strong evidence. It also highlights the consequences of filing false charges.
Q: What are the implications for future cases?
A: Future cases seeking CBI investigations will need to present more credible evidence and demonstrate that the State police investigation was inadequate or biased.
Q: What action can be taken against those who file false charges?
A: Those who file false charges can face penalties, including costs and potential criminal proceedings for perjury and related offenses.