Amar Nath Chaubey PDF
Amar Nath Chaubey PDF
Amar Nath Chaubey PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.6951 OF 2018
AMAR NATH CHAUBEY ...PETITIONER (S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
One Shri Ram Bihari Chaubey, the father of the petitioner,
04.12.2015 at around 7.15 AM. An F.I.R. No. 378/2015 under
Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149, I.P.C. was registered the same
them entered the residence and shot the deceased, while the two
others waited outside, after which they all escaped.
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
2.
Date: 2020.12.14
16:31:00 IST
Reason:
The petitioner, son of the deceased, approached the
Allahabad High Court complaining of the lackadaisical manner in
1
which the police was investigating because some powerful
report and also required the Chief Secretary to file his affidavit in
the matter. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order of
before the competent court within a period of eight weeks.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the
State of Uttar Pradesh and for respondent no.5. On 29.06.2017
Singh son of late Ramji Singh, Ajay Singh and Shani Singh both
stated that the name of respondent no.5 had transpired during
Section 120B I.P.C. was also added. The charge sheeted accused
2
Raju alias Nagender Singh confessed that apart from the others
planned and executed. The investigation was thus kept pending
against Manish Singh, Dabloo Singh and respondent no.5. The
police in the case diary noting dated 17.02.2017 recorded that on
respondent no.5 had given a “supari” of Rs. Five lacs for murder
person behind the incident was respondent no.5 based on very
diary noting dated 06.04.2017 records that the police party went
police had come. Respondent no.5 demanded the production of
investigating officer to give in writing that the suspect was being
taken for interrogation. Raju alias Nagender Singh after intensive
interrogation disclosed that with coaccused Ajay Singh, he had
3
the murder was committed by him and his accomplices. The case
diary noting dated 29.06.2017 records that investigation against
progress. Respondent no.5 vide Annexure P.5 letter no. 4/2017
from the C.B.I.
before the High Court on 11.10.2017 that the investigation up to
Nagender Singh, Shani Singh, Manish Singh, Dabloo Singh and
investigation it was apparent that the murder was committed due
4
help of respondent no.5 and that the police were trying to collect
under Section 302 IPC. In five cases final report had been filed in
absence of credible evidence. In nine cases respondent no.5 had
been charge sheeted but was acquitted. Five criminal trials are
order dated 11.11.1998. It concluded that the allegations against
respondent no.5 were under investigation.
General of Police, U.P. to file an affidavit with regard to the status
cogent evidence against respondent no.5 despite discreet efforts.
Investigation of the case was therefore closed on 30.01.2019 and
5
report submitted in the concerned court along with other police
papers on 04.06.2019 with regard to accused Ajay Singh, Shani
summoned the complainant for evidence on several dates, but the
complainant had not appeared.
6. We have considered the matter. The F.I.R. was registered on
petition filed in the High Court. An investigation which had been
satisfactory, on 26.10.2020 this Court required the respondents
to file copy of the closure report stated to have been filed before
Pindara, Varanasi dated 31.10.2020, pursuant to our order dated
6
17.12.2018 and the closure report dated 30.01.2019 submitted in
there was no concrete evidence of conspiracy against respondent
no.5 and that the informant had not placed any materials before
the police direct or indirect with regard to the conspiracy. As and
when materials will be found against respondent no.5 in future,
action would be taken as per law. No credible evidence was found
against Manish Singh and Dabloo Singh.
7. We are constrained to record that the investigation and the
The investigation and closure report do not contain any material
accused including respondent no.5 for conspiracy to arrive at the
The investigation appears to be a sham, designed to conceal more
7
investigate on receiving report of the commission of a cognizable
Procedure apart from being a constitutional obligation to ensure
possible as the informant had not supplied adequate materials to
from the police.
8. The police has a statutory duty to investigate into any crime
Procedure. Investigation is the exclusive privilege and prerogative
of the police which cannot be interfered with. But if the police
does not perform its statutory duty in accordance with law or is
remiss in the performance of its duty, the court cannot abdicate
investigation, the court has a bounden constitutional obligation
8
to ensure that the investigation is conducted in accordance with
law. If the court gives any directions for that purpose within the
investigation. A fair investigation is, but a necessary concomitant
of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and this Court
has the bounden obligation to ensure adherence by the police.
ors., (2014) 2 SCC 532, this court observed as follows :
9
with animosity, the court may intervene to
protect the personal and/or property rights of
the citizens.
sheeted accused, and the informant summoned to give evidence.
10
In the facts of the case, we direct that further trial shall remain
culminating in the report dated 30.01.2019 are partly set aside
Those already charge sheeted, calls for no interference.
11. We hereby appoint Shri Satyarth Anirudh Pankaj, I.P.S. as
investigation in the matter through a team of competent officers
to be selected by him of his own choice. The State shall ensure
concluded within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order, unless extension is required, and the final
Police, Uttar Pradesh shall do the needful.
11
12. List immediately after two months for further orders.
…………...................J.
[R.F. NARIMAN]
…………...................J.
[NAVIN SINHA]
…………...................J.
[KRISHNA MURARI]
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 14, 2020.
12