Tags Rape

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Crl.), 85 of 2016, Judgment Date: Jan 29, 2016

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.85 OF 2016
                    (@ S.L.P.(Criminal) No. 6298 of 2015)




Dharam Pal                                                     ...  Appellant

                                   Versus

State of Haryana & Ors.                                       ... Respondents





                               J U D G M E N T


Dipak Misra, J.


      Leave granted.
2.    Cry for fair trial by the accused as well as by the  victim  sometimes
remains in the singular  and  individualistic  realm,  may  be  due  to  the
perception gatherable from the facts that there is an attempt to contest  on
the plinth  of  fairness  being  provoked  by  some  kind  of  vengeance  or
singularity  of  “affected  purpose”;  but,  irrefutably  a  pronounced  and
pregnant one, there are occasions when the individual cry is not  guided  by
any kind of revengeful attitude or anger or venom, but  by  the  distressing
disappointment faced by the grieved person in getting  his  voice  heard  in
proper perspective by the  authorities  who  are  in  charge  of  conducting
investigation and the frustration of a victim gets more aggravated  when  he
is impecunious, and mentally shattered owing to the situation he is  in  and
thereby  knows  not  where  to  go,  the  anguish  takes  the  character  of
collective agony.  When the investigation, as perceived by him,  is  nothing
but  an  apology  for  the  same  and  mirrors  before  him  the  world   of
disillusionment that gives rise to  the  scuffle  between  the  majesty  and
sanctity of law on one hand and its abuses on the other, he  is  constrained
to seek intervention of the superior courts putting forth a  case  that  his
cry is not motivated but an expression of collective mortification  and  the
intention is that justice should not be attenuated.
3.    Justice, which is “truth in  action”  and  “the  firm  and  continuous
desire to render to everyone which in his due”  becomes  a  mirage  for  the
victim and being perturbed he knocks at the doors of the  High  Court  under
Article 226 of the Constitution alleging that principle of fair  and  proper
investigation has been comatosed by the investigating agency, for  the  said
agency has crucified the concept of faith  in  the  investigation  which  is
expected to maintain loyalty to law and sustain fidelity to its purpose.  In
the case at hand,  the assertions made with immense  anguish  gave  rise  to
the question before the High Court whether some progress in trial would  act
as a remora in the dispensation of  justice  and  the  situation  should  be
allowed to remain as it is so that an organic disorder is allowed  to  creep
in and corrode and create a cul-de-sac in  administration  of  justice.  The
further question posed whether the non-approach to the court  prior  to  the
stage of commencement of trial would be a peccadillo so as to  usher  in  an
absolutely indifferent, unconcerned and, in a way, biased  investigation  to
rule and in the ultimate eventuate lead to  guillotining  of  justice.   The
High Court having negatived the  stand  put  forth  by  the  appellant,  the
husband of the deceased, he has approached this  Court  by  way  of  special
leave.
4.    With  the  aforesaid  prefatory  note  and  a  short  prelude  to  the
grievance of the appellant, we proceed to narrate the facts.
5.    The minor daughter of the appellant  who  was  raped  by  the  accused
persons was threatened with dire consequences  in  case  she  disclosed  the
incident.  The incident, as alleged, occurred  on  06.08.2012.  Despite  the
threat, the daughter disclosed the incident to her parents. Keeping in  view
the future of the girl and the social repercussions, they  chose  to  suffer
in silence rather than set the criminal law in  motion.    When  the  family
stood reconciled to the situation, something  extremely  untoward  happened.
On 02.09.2012, Kamlesh Devi, wife of the  appellant,  had  gone  to  village
Nilikhen for taking medicine for her teeth and  gums  problem  but  did  not
return home on that day.  The appellant searched for  his  wife  along  with
his relatives and eventually a bag containing vegetables and  medicines  and
some other articles belonging to the wife was found  underneath  the  bridge
Manak Majra  on  the  lower  side  of  Sarsa  Branch  river.  The  appellant
suspected that Kusum, wife of Sukh Ram, resident of  Kalsi  and  Aman  alias
Virender had abducted his wife or had thrown her into the river. In  such  a
situation, the appellant lodged an FIR, on 05.09.2012 at  P.S.  Butana.  The
investigating agency registered the FIR  No.  354  for  the  offences  under
Section 363, 366-A, 506, 365 and 34 of the  Indian  Penal  Code  (for  short
“IPC”). During the investigation, on 05.09.2012, the dead  body  of  Kamlesh
Devi  was  found  near  the  Sarsa  Branch  canal  bridge.  Thereafter,  the
appellant and his daughter were examined and on that  basis,  offence  under
Section 376 IPC was added.  Eventually, the allegations were segregated  and
FIR No. 394 dated 20.09.2012 under Sections 363, 365, 376(2)G, 506, 201  and
120-B IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes  and  the  Scheduled  Tribes
(Prevention  of  Atrocities)  Act,  1989  was  registered  and   after   the
investigation,  a charge-sheet was filed. Be it stated, the accused  persons
in FIR No. 394 dated 20.09.2012 have been acquitted by  the  judgment  dated
12.03.2014  by  the  learned  Sessions  Judge.   Against  the  judgment   of
acquittal, the appellant has  filed  a  criminal  appeal  which  is  pending
before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.  Therefore,  we  shall  refrain
from referring to the facts of the said case.
6.    Coming to the subject matter of FIR  No.  354  which  relates  to  the
murder of the wife of the appellant, as is evident, the  report  would  show
that the cause of death was due to strangulation coupled  with  head  injury
which is antiemortem in nature and sufficient to  cause  death  in  ordinary
course.   Apart from the accused persons named in the FIR,  another  person,
namely, Krishan Kumar, was also implicated who was arrested  on  19.10.2012.
The other two accused persons,  namely,  Aman  and  Kusum  were  taken  into
custody on 30.10.2012. It is a matter  of  record  that  the  appellant  was
provided security personnel as threats were received by  the  appellant  for
entering into a compromise in the rape case, and for change of  his  version
in the murder case of his wife.
7.    It has been asserted  and  not  denied  by  the  respondents  that  on
28.01.2013, the Superintendent of Police, Karnal vide Office Memo  No.  3961
recommended to the  Director  General  of  Police,  Haryana  that  the  case
bearing FIR No. 354 along with the  rape  case  and  the  unsolved  case  of
murder of the sister-in-law of the appellant be transferred to  the  Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI), New Delhi. Based on the said  recommendation,
the Additionally Chief Secretary, Government of  Haryana  vide  Office  Memo
No. 20/2/2013-3HG1 requested the  Secretary  to  the  Government  of  India,
Ministry  of  Personnel,  Public  Grievances  &  Pensions,   Department   of
Personnel & Training, New Delhi for handing over the  investigation  to  the
CBI. It has also been asserted that a departmental  action  has  been  taken
against ASI  Ram  Prakash  and  SHO  Sanjeev  Malik  on  the  basis  of  the
complaints made by  the  appellant.  On  information  being  sought  by  the
appellant under the Right to Information Act, 2005,  he  has  been  informed
vide communication dated 17.11.2014 that departmental  inquiry  had  already
been initiated against ASI Ram Prakash and SHO Sanjeev Malik on  charges  of
dereliction and negligence of duty.  It was  also  mentioned  in  the  reply
that as a result of departmental inquiry,  Ram  Prakash  had  been  reverted
from the post of ASI to Head Constable, and with respect to  Sanjeev  Malik,
the proceedings had been sent to the Deputy Commissioner of  Police,  Ambala
for being transferred.
8.    The issue that arises for consideration is whether  such  a  situation
calls for issuance of direction for transfer of  the  investigation  to  the
CBI. The High Court has declined to so direct as  trial  has  commenced  and
some witnesses  have  been  examined.   The  High  Court  has  gone  by  the
principle of “stage”.  When the matter was listed on 18.09.2015, this  Court
had directed a copy of the petition to be served on Mr.  P.K.  Dey,  learned
counsel who ordinarily appears for the CBI. The stand of  the  CBI  is  that
the case does not fall within the guidelines laid  down  by  this  Court  in
State of West Bengal & others v.  Committee  for  Protection  of  Democratic
Rights, West Bengal and others[1].
9.    Learned counsel for the State has supported the order  passed  by  the
High Court and also emphasized that regard being had to  the  stage  of  the
trial, there is no need for directing for investigation by another agency.
10.   First, we intend to deal with the stand of the CBI and the  principles
laid down in Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (supra).  In  the
said case, the Constitution Bench, after examining the rival contentions  in
the  context  of  the  constitutional   scheme,   recorded   the   following
conclusions:-
“(i) The fundamental rights, enshrined in Part III of the Constitution,  are
inherent and cannot be  extinguished  by  any  constitutional  or  statutory
provision.  Any  law  that  abrogates  or  abridges  such  rights  would  be
violative of the basic structure doctrine. The actual effect and  impact  of
the law on the rights guaranteed  under  Part  III  has  to  be  taken  into
account in determining whether or not it destroys the basic structure.

(ii) Article 21 of the  Constitution  in  its  broad  perspective  seeks  to
protect the persons of their lives and personal liberties  except  according
to the  procedure  established  by  law.  The  said  article  in  its  broad
application not only takes within its fold enforcement of the rights  of  an
accused but also the rights of the victim. The State has a duty  to  enforce
the  human  rights  of  a  citizen  providing   for   fair   and   impartial
investigation against any person  accused  of  commission  of  a  cognizable
offence, which may include its own officers. In certain  situations  even  a
witness to the crime may seek for and shall be  granted  protection  by  the
State.

(iii) In view of the constitutional scheme and  the  jurisdiction  conferred
on this Court under Article 32 and on the High Courts under Article  226  of
the Constitution the power of judicial review being an integral part of  the
basic structure of the Constitution, no Act of  Parliament  can  exclude  or
curtail  the  powers  of  the  constitutional  courts  with  regard  to  the
enforcement of fundamental rights. As a matter of  fact,  such  a  power  is
essential to give practicable content to the objectives of the  Constitution
embodied in Part III and other parts of the  Constitution.  Moreover,  in  a
federal  constitution,  the  distribution  of  legislative  powers   between
Parliament and the State  Legislature  involves  limitation  on  legislative
powers and, therefore, this requires an authority other than  Parliament  to
ascertain whether such limitations are transgressed.  Judicial  review  acts
as the final arbiter  not  only  to  give  effect  to  the  distribution  of
legislative powers between Parliament and  the  State  Legislatures,  it  is
also necessary to show any  transgression  by  each  entity.  Therefore,  to
borrow the words of Lord Steyn, judicial review is justified by  combination
of “the principles of separation of powers, rule of law,  the  principle  of
constitutionality and the reach of judicial review”.

(iv) If the federal structure is violated by  any  legislative  action,  the
Constitution takes care to protect the federal structure  by  ensuring  that
the Courts act  as  guardians  and  interpreters  of  the  Constitution  and
provide remedy under Articles 32 and 226, whenever  there  is  an  attempted
violation. In the circumstances, any direction by the Supreme Court  or  the
High Court in exercise of power under  Article  32  or  226  to  uphold  the
Constitution and maintain the rule of law cannot be termed as violating  the
federal structure.

(v) Restriction on Parliament by the Constitution  and  restriction  on  the
executive by Parliament under an enactment, do not amount to restriction  on
the power of the Judiciary under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution.

(vi) If in terms of Entry 2 of List II of the Seventh Schedule  on  the  one
hand and Entry 2-A and Entry 80 of List I on the other, an investigation  by
another agency is permissible subject to  grant  of  consent  by  the  State
concerned, there is no reason as to why, in an  exceptional  situation,  the
Court would be precluded from exercising the  same  power  which  the  Union
could exercise in terms of the provisions of the statute.  In  our  opinion,
exercise of such power by the constitutional courts would  not  violate  the
doctrine of separation of powers. In fact, if in such a situation the  Court
fails to grant relief, it would be failing in its constitutional duty.

(vii) When the Special Police  Act  itself  provides  that  subject  to  the
consent by the State, CBI can take  up  investigation  in  relation  to  the
crime which was otherwise within the jurisdiction of the State  police,  the
Court can also exercise its constitutional  power  of  judicial  review  and
direct CBI to take up the  investigation  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the
State. The power of the High Court under Article  226  of  the  Constitution
cannot be taken away, curtailed or diluted  by  Section  6  of  the  Special
Police Act. Irrespective of there being any statutory provision acting as  a
restriction on the powers of the Courts, the restriction imposed by  Section
6 of the Special Police Act on the powers of the Union, cannot  be  read  as
restriction  on  the  powers  of  the  constitutional   courts.   Therefore,
[pic]exercise of power  of  judicial  review  by  the  High  Court,  in  our
opinion, would  not  amount  to  infringement  of  either  the  doctrine  of
separation of power or the federal structure.”
                                                            [emphasis added]


11.   After recording the conclusions, the Constitution Bench added  a  note
of caution which we may profitably reproduce:-
“Before parting with the case,  we  deem  it  necessary  to  emphasise  that
despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226  of  the  Constitution,
while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind  certain  self-imposed
limitations on  the  exercise  of  these  constitutional  powers.  The  very
plenitude of the power under the said articles  requires  great  caution  in
its exercise. Insofar as the question of  issuing  a  direction  to  CBI  to
conduct investigation  in  a  case  is  concerned,  although  no  inflexible
guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such  power  should  be
exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such  an  order  is
not to be passed as a matter of  routine  or  merely  because  a  party  has
levelled some allegations  against  the  local  police.  This  extraordinary
power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional  situations
where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil  confidence  in
investigations or where the incident may  have  national  and  international
ramifications or where such an order may be  necessary  for  doing  complete
justice and  enforcing  the  fundamental  rights.  Otherwise  CBI  would  be
flooded with a large number of cases and with limited  resources,  may  find
it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in  the  process
lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.”
                                                        [underlying is ours]


12.   In the said case, a contention was  raised  that  a  detailed  charge-
sheet had been filed and subsequent to  the  filing  of  the  said  detailed
charge-sheet, a supplementary charge-sheet had also been filed  to  complete
the evidence, both oral and documentary, to bring  home  the  guilt  of  the
accused before the competent court and  in  accordance  with  the  direction
given by the Court further investigation had been carried out in  accordance
with Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure  and,  therefore,  the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution had come  to
an end. In essence, the submission was that when a  charge-sheet  was  filed
after conducting the investigation under the supervision and  monitoring  of
the Court, there was no  need  to  transfer  the  case  to  another  agency.
Repelling the said submission, the larger Bench opined, regard being had  to
the nature of the crime and the persons involved,  the  investigation  could
not be said to be satisfactorily held.  That apart, the  Constitution  Bench
also ruled that in the  circumstances  it  was  not  sufficient  to  instill
confidence in the minds of the victims as well as the public at  large  that
State should be allowed to  continue  the  investigation  when  the  alleged
offences were against its officials.  Under these circumstances,  the  Court
directed the CBI to take up the investigation and submit a report.
13.   On a perusal of the said authority, we really do not find  any  aspect
which would support the stand put forth by the learned counsel for the  CBI.
On the contrary, as we perceive,  the  Constitution  Bench  has  laid  great
emphasis on instilling of faith of the victim and the  public  at  large  in
the investigating agency.  True it is, the  facts  in  the  said  case  were
different  and  related  to  alleged  crimes  committed  by  certain   State
officials,  but  the  base  of  confidence   in   investigation   has   been
significantly highlighted.
14.   In the context, we may profitably refer to a two-Judge Bench  decision
in Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat and others[2]. The Court, in the  factual
matrix of the case, has emphasized that if the majesty of the  rule  of  law
is to be upheld and if it is to be ensured that the guilty are  punished  in
accordance with law notwithstanding their status and  authority  which  they
might have enjoyed, it is desirable to entrust the investigation to CBI.
15.   A three-Judge Bench in K.V. Rajendran  v.  Superintendent  of  Police,
CBCID South Zone, Chennai  and  others[3]  reiterating  the  said  principle
stated that the power of transferring such investigation  must  be  in  rare
and exceptional cases where the court finds it  necessary  in  order  to  do
justice between the parties and to instill confidence in  the  public  mind,
or where investigation by the State  police  lacks  credibility  and  it  is
necessary for having  “a  fair,  honest  and  complete  investigation”,  and
particularly, when it is imperative  to  retain  public  confidence  in  the
impartial working of the State  agencies.  The  Court,  after  referring  to
earlier decisions, has laid down as follows:-

“In view of the above, the law can be summarised  to  the  effect  that  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.  Such  as
where high officials of State authorities are involved,  or  the  accusation
itself is against the top officials  of  the  investigating  agency  thereby
allowing them to influence the investigation, and  further  that  it  is  so
necessary to do justice and to instil confidence  in  the  investigation  or
where the investigation is prima facie found to be tainted/biased.”


16.   The factual scenario in the present case has to be appreciated on  the
touchstone of the aforesaid authorities. As the  facts  would  reveal  there
was a request by  the  Additional  Chief  Secretary  for  handing  over  the
investigation to the CBI; that departmental action  was  taken  against  the
investigating authorities for negligent investigation;  that  the  concerned
ASI has been reverted to  the  post  of  Head  Constable;  and  that  apart,
certain material witnesses have  not  been  examined  by  the  investigating
agency without any rhyme or reason.  The reasoning of the High Court  is  as
the trial has commenced, there cannot be a transfer of the case  to  another
investigating agency.
17.   In this context, we may notice  the  statutory  scheme  pertaining  to
investigation.  Section 173 Cr.P.C. empowers the Police  Officer  conducting
investigation to file a report on completion of the investigation  with  the
Magistrate empowered to take cognizance  of  the  offence.   Section  173(8)
Cr.P.C. empowers the office-in-charge to conduct further investigation  even
after filing of a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. if he obtains  further
evidence, oral or documentary.  Thus, the power of the Police Officer  under
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is unrestricted.   Needless to  say,  the  Magistrate
has no power to interfere but it would be appropriate on  the  part  of  the
investigating officer to inform the Court. It has been  so  stated  in  Rama
Chaudhary v. State of Bihar[4].

18.   In Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali[5],  wherein  a  two-Judge  Bench,  after
referring to the decision in Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. Of Police[6] has  held
thus:-
“However, having given our considered thought to the  principles  stated  in
these judgments, we are of the  view  that  the  Magistrate  before  whom  a
report under Section 173(2) of the Code is filed, is  empowered  in  law  to
direct “further investigation” and require the police to  submit  a  further
or a supplementary report. A three-Judge Bench of  this  Court  in  Bhagwant
Singh has, in no uncertain terms, stated that principle, as aforenoticed.”

19.   In the said case, the question had arisen  whether  a  Magistrate  can
direct for re-investigation. While dealing with the said  issue,  the  Court
has observed:-
“At this stage,  we  may  also  state  another  well-settled  canon  of  the
criminal jurisprudence that the superior courts have the jurisdiction  under
Section 482 of the Code or even Article 226 of the Constitution of India  to
direct  “further   investigation”,   “fresh”   or   “de   novo”   and   even
“reinvestigation”. “Fresh”, “de novo” and “reinvestigation”  are  synonymous
expressions and their result in law would be the same. The  superior  courts
are even vested with the power of
transferring investigation from one agency to another, provided the ends  of
justice so demand
such action. Of course, it is also a settled principle that this  power  has
to be exercised by the superior courts very sparingly and with great
circumspection.”
                                                         [Emphasis supplied]

And again:-

“Whether the Magistrate should direct  “further  investigation”  or  not  is
again a matter which will
depend upon the facts of a given case. The learned Magistrate or the  higher
court of competent jurisdiction  would  direct  “further  investigation”  or
“reinvestigation” as the case may
be, on the facts of a given case.  Where  the  Magistrate  can  only  direct
further  investigation,  the  courts  of  higher  jurisdiction  can   direct
further, reinvestigation or even investigation  de  novo  depending  on  the
facts of a given case. It will be the  specific  order  of  the  court  that
would determine the nature of investigation.”


20.   Be it noted  here  that  the  constitutional  courts  can  direct  for
further investigation or investigation by some other  investigating  agency.
The purpose is, there has to be a fair investigation and a fair  trial.  The
fair trial may be quite difficult unless there is a fair investigation.   We
are  absolutely  conscious  that  direction  for  further  investigation  by
another agency has to be very sparingly issued but  the  facts  depicted  in
this case compel us to exercise the said power.  We are  disposed  to  think
that purpose of justice commands that the cause of the victim,  the  husband
of the deceased, deserves to be answered so that miscarriage of  justice  is
avoided.  Therefore, in this case the  stage  of  the  case  cannot  be  the
governing factor.
21.   We may further elucidate.  The power to order fresh,  de-novo  or  re-
investigation 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.  It can never  be  forgotten  that  as
the great ocean has only one test, the test of salt,  so  does  justice  has
one flavour, the flavour of answering to the distress of the people  without
any discrimination.  We may hasten to add that the democratic setup has  the
potentiality of ruination if a citizen feels, the truth uttered  by  a  poor
man is seldom listened to. Not for nothing it has been said that  Sun  rises
and Sun sets, light and darkness, winter and spring come and  go,  even  the
course of time is playful but truth remains and  sparkles  when  justice  is
done.  It is the bounden duty of a Court of law  to  uphold  the  truth  and
truth  means  absence  of  deceit,  absence  of  fraud  and  in  a  criminal
investigation a real and  fair  investigation,  not  an  investigation  that
reveals itself as a sham one.  It is not acceptable.   It  has  to  be  kept
uppermost in mind that impartial and truthful investigation  is  imperative.
If there is indentation or concavity in the investigation,  can the  ‘faith’
 in investigation be  regarded  as  the  gospel  truth?  Will  it  have  the
sanctity or the purity of a genuine investigation?   If  a  grave  suspicion
arises with regard to  the  investigation,  should  a  Constitutional  Court
close its hands and accept the proposition that as the trial has  commenced,
the matter is beyond it?  That is the “tour de  force”  of  the  prosecution
and if we allow ourselves to say so it has become “‘id’ee fixe” but  in  our
view the  imperium  of  the  Constitutional  Courts  cannot  be  stifled  or
smothered by bon mot or polemic.  Of course, the suspicion  must  have  some
sort of base and foundation and not a figment  of  one’s  wild  imagination.
One may think an impartial investigation would be a nostrum  but  not  doing
so would be like playing possum. As has been stated earlier facts are  self-
evident and the  grieved  protagonist,  a  person  belonging  to  the  lower
strata.  He should not harbor the feeling that he is an “orphan under  law”.

22.   In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appeal is  allowed,  the  order
of the High Court is set aside, and  it  is  directed  that  the  CBI  shall
conduct the investigation and file  the  report  before  the  learned  trial
judge.  The said investigation report  shall  be  considered  by  the  trial
judge as per law.  Till the report by the CBI is filed,  the  learned  trial
judge shall not proceed with the trial.  A copy of the order be handed  over
to Mr. P.K. Dey, learned counsel for the CBI to do the needful.

                                           ...............................J.
                                                              [Dipak Misra]



                                           ...............................J.
                                                         [Prafulla C. Pant]
New Delhi,
January 29, 2016
-----------------------
[1]    (2010) 3 SCC 571
[2]    (2011) 5 SCC 79
[3]    (2013) 12 SCC 480
[4]    (2009) 6 SCC 346
[5]    (2013) 5 SCC 762
[6]    (1985) 2 SCC 537

-----------------------
21