Case Note & Summary
The case arises from the murder of Ram Bihari Chaubey, father of the petitioner Amar Nath Chaubey, who was shot dead at his residence in Varanasi on 4 December 2015. An FIR was registered under Sections 302, 147, 148, and 149 IPC. The petitioner approached the Allahabad High Court alleging lackadaisical investigation due to involvement of powerful political personalities, and sought a mandamus for proper inquiry including by the CBI. The High Court disposed of the writ petition on 17 May 2018 accepting the police's assurance that investigation would be concluded expeditiously. Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. During the proceedings, the Supreme Court noted that eight investigating officers had been changed, and that after the Court issued notice on 7 September 2018, the investigation was promptly closed on 30 January 2019. The closure report stated no concrete evidence of conspiracy against respondent no.5, a local politician with 24 criminal cases. The Court found the investigation and closure report extremely casual and perfunctory, based on the ipse dixit of the Investigating Officer, and appearing to be a sham designed to conceal. The Court held that the police have a statutory duty to investigate cognizable offences, and a fair investigation is a necessary concomitant of Articles 14 and 21. Citing Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, the Court observed that in exceptional cases where investigation is not bona fide, the court may intervene. The Court set aside the closure report and directed the CBI to investigate the role of respondent no.5 and other suspects, and to file a status report within three months. The trial against the charge-sheeted accused was directed to proceed expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Police Investigation - Statutory Duty - Sections 154, 173 CrPC - The police have a statutory duty to investigate cognizable offences upon receiving an FIR. The investigation must be conducted in accordance with law, and the police cannot abdicate this duty by claiming lack of materials from the informant. (Paras 7-8) B) Constitutional Law - Fair Investigation - Articles 14, 21 - A fair investigation is a necessary concomitant of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The court has a constitutional obligation to ensure that investigation is conducted in accordance with law, and may give directions within the contours of law without interfering with investigation. (Para 8) C) Criminal Procedure - Court's Power to Intervene - Investigation - The court may intervene in investigation in exceptional cases where the police exercise investigatory powers in breach of statutory provisions, act mala fide, or the investigation is tainted with animosity. The superior courts may monitor investigation to ensure free, fair and time-bound investigation. (Para 9, citing Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, (2014) 2 SCC 532) D) Criminal Procedure - Closure Report - Perfunctory Investigation - The closure report stating no evidence against respondent no.5 was based on ipse dixit of the Investigating Officer and was extremely casual and perfunctory. The investigation appeared to be a sham designed to conceal. (Paras 7, 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the police investigation into the murder of Ram Bihari Chaubey was conducted in a fair and bona fide manner, and whether the court should order further investigation by the CBI.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the closure report dated 30.01.2019 and directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the role of respondent no.5 and other suspects in the murder. The CBI was directed to file a status report within three months. The trial against the charge-sheeted accused was directed to proceed expeditiously.
Law Points
- Statutory duty of police to investigate cognizable offences
- Constitutional obligation under Articles 14 and 21 for fair investigation
- Court's power to intervene when investigation is not bona fide
- Precedent in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary
