Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Sunit@Sumit Singh on 8 January, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:537
1 WA-2804-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 8 th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 2804 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
SUNIT@SUMIT SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
appellants / State.
None for the respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
Heard on the maintainability of the writ appeal.
02. The present writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya
Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam,
2005 (in short 'the Adhiniyam of 2005') has been filed against the order
dated 22.08.2024 passed in M.Cr.C. No.28712 of 2024.
03. The respondent approached the Single Bench by way of sixth
application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita /
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (old) seeking bail in
connection with FIR / Crime No.270/2020 registered at Police Station -
Industrial Area, District - Ratlam for commission of offence punishable
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:537
2 WA-2804-2024
under Sections 302, 34, 450, 397, 398, 114, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code
& Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms act.
04. During the arguments, the Court found lapses on the part of the
Investigating Officer as he did not collect the chance fingerprint from the
spot, where the robbery took place and a woman was murdered brutally. The
explanation given by the Investigating Officer was not found satisfactory and
the Court further held him negligent in discharging his duties.
05. In such circumstances learned Court has issued direction to the
Director General of Police, Bhopal (M.P.) for formation of ''Serious Crime
Investigation Supervising Team'' in each districts comprising of two
member, in which one shall be senior level police officer, not below the rank
of of experienced IPS Officer and other officer of the Police Department not
below the rank of Sub Inspector of Police. The said team shall supervise the
investigation and rule of Investigating Officer before submitting the charge-
sheet before the concerned Court.
06. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid direction, the State of Madhya
Pradesh has filed the writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Adhiniyam of
2005. The Registry of this Court has raised objection about maintainability
of the present writ appeal.
07. The State Government enacted the Adhiniyam of 2005 to
provide for an appeal from a judgment or order passed by one Judge of the
High Court in exercise of the original Jurisdiction, to the Division Bench of
the same High Court. Section 2(1) provides that an appeal shall lie from a
Judgment or order passed by one Judge of the High Court in exercise of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:537
3 WA-2804-2024
original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to a
Division Bench comprising of two judges of the same High Court. As per
proviso to the said section, no such appeal shall lie against an interlocutory
order or against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
08. Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
appellants / State submits that although the order has been passed in M.Cr.C.
but the Hon'ble Judge has issued the direction like the Writ court, therefore,
the present writ appeal has been filed. Shri Bhargava further submits that in
similar facts and circumstances, the Division Bench at Principal Seat at
Jabalpur had already entertained Writ Appeal No.396 of 2023 (The State of
Madhya Pradesh v/s Sanant Kumar Jaiswal Alias Sant Kumar) filed against
the order passed in M.Cr.C. No.24271 of 2022. The Division Bench has set
aside the order in the writ appeal by observing that the learned Single Judge
went beyond its jurisdiction in issuing such directions in bail matter.
8.1. Shri Bhargava, learned Deputy Advocate General further
submits that in most of the Districts only one IPS Officer is posted as
Superintendent of Police and if he is given this additional duty of supervising
the investigation and examination of the charge-sheet, it would be extra
burden on him. Therefore, the order be modified by appointing DSP or
SDOP, as the case may be, the head member of the said Team.
09. In urban area, the CSP is already an Incharge of investigation
and in rural area, the SDOP is already an Incharge of investigation in serious
crime. Since they are not discharging their duties properly, therefore, this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:537
4 WA-2804-2024
Court has found it suitable to issue such direction to the Director General of
Police for formation of Serious Crime Investigation Supervising Team
headed by the senior IPS Officer.
10. The Apex Court in the case of State of Gajarat v/s Kishanbhai &
Others reported in (2014) 5 SCC 108 has seriously considered the serious
effect of defective and illegal investigation in heinous cases. The Apex Court
issued directions for the purposeful and decisive investigation, training
programme within six months to ensure that those persons who handle
sensitive matters concerning investigation/prosecution are fully trained to
handle the same. The Apex Court directed the Home Department of every
State to formulate a procedure for taking action against all erring
investigating/prosecuting officials/officers. Paragraphs - 20, 21, 22 & 23 of
the said judgment is reproduced below:-
"20. Numerous petitions are filed before this Court, praying for
anticipatory bail (under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure) at the behest of persons apprehending arrest, or for bail
(under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) at the
behest of persons already under detention. In a large number of
such petitions, the main contention is of false implication.
Likewise, many petitions seeking quashing of criminal proceeding
(filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) come
up for hearing day after day, wherein also, the main contention is
of fraudulent entanglement/involvement. In matters where prayers
for anticipatory bail or for bail made under Sections 438 and 439
are denied, or where a quashing petition filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure is declined, the person concerned
may have to suffer periods of incarceration for different lengths of
time. They suffer captivity and confinement most of the times (at
least where they are accused of serious offences), till the
culmination of their trial. In case of their conviction, they would
continue in confinement during the appellate stages also, and in
matters which reach the Supreme Court, till the disposal of their
appeals by this Court. By the time they are acquitted at the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:537
5 WA-2804-2024
appellate stage, they may have undergone long years of custody.
When acquitted by this Court, they may have suffered
imprisonment of 10 years, or more. When they are acquitted (by
the trial or the appellate court), no one returns to them; what was
wrongfully taken away from them. The system responsible for the
administration of justice, is responsible for having deprived them
of their lives, equivalent to the period of their detention. It is not
untrue, that for all the wrong reasons, innocent persons are
subjected to suffer the ignominy of criminal prosecution and to
suffer shame and humiliation. Just like it is the bounden duty of a
court to serve the cause of justice to the victim, so also, it is the
bounden duty of a court to ensure that an innocent person is not
subjected to the rigours of criminal prosecution.
21. The situation referred to above needs to be remedied. For the
said purpose, adherence to a simple procedure could serve the
objective. We accordingly direct, that on the completion of the
investigation in a criminal case, the prosecuting agency should
apply its independent mind, and require all shortcomings to be
rectified, if necessary by requiring further investigation. It should
also be ensured, that the evidence gathered during investigation is
truly and faithfully utilized, by confirming that all relevant
witnesses and materials for proving the charges are
conscientiously presented during the trial of a case. This would
achieve two purposes. Only persons against whom there is
sufficient evidence, will have to suffer the rigors of criminal
prosecution. By following the above procedure, in most criminal
prosecutions, the concerned agencies will be able to successfully
establish the guilt of the accused.
22. Every acquittal should be understood as a failure of the
justice delivery system, in serving the cause of justice. Likewise,
every acquittal should ordinarily lead to the inference, that an
innocent person was wrongfully prosecuted. It is therefore,
essential that every State should put in place a procedural
mechanism, which would ensure that the cause of justice is served,
which would simultaneously ensure the safeguard of interest of
those who are innocent. In furtherance of the above purpose, it is
considered essential to direct the Home Department of every State,
to examine all orders of acquittal and to record reasons for the
failure of each prosecution case. A standing committee of senior
officers of the police and prosecution departments, should be
vested with aforesaid responsibility. The consideration at the
hands of the above committee, should be utilized for crystalizing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:537
6 WA-2804-2024
mistakes committed during investigation, and/or prosecution, or
both. The Home Department of every State Government will
incorporate in its existing training programmes for junior
investigation/prosecution officials course- content drawn from the
above consideration. The same should also constitute course-
content of refresher training programmes, for senior
investigating/prosecuting officials. The above responsibility for
preparing training programmes for officials, should be vested in
the same committee of senior officers referred to above.
Judgments like the one in hand (depicting more than 10 glaring
lapses in the investigation/prosecution of the case), and similar
other judgments, may also be added to the training programmes.
The course content will be reviewed by the above committee
annually, on the basis of fresh inputs, including emerging
scientific tools of investigation, judgments of Courts, and on the
basis of experiences gained by the standing committee while
examining failures, in unsuccessful prosecution of cases. We
further direct, that the above training programme be put in place
within 6 months. This would ensure that those persons who handle
sensitive matters concerning investigation/prosecution are fully
trained to handle the same. Thereupon, if any lapses are
committed by them, they would not be able to feign innocence,
when they are made liable to suffer departmental action, for their
lapses.
2 3 . On the culmination of a criminal case in acquittal, the
concerned investigating/prosecuting official(s) responsible for
such acquittal must necessarily be identified. A finding needs to
be recorded in each case, whether the lapse was innocent or
blameworthy. Each erring officer must suffer the consequences of
his lapse, by appropriate departmental action, whenever called for.
Taking into consideration the seriousness of the matter, the
concerned official may be withdrawn from investigative
responsibilities, permanently or temporarily, depending purely on
his culpability. We also feel compelled to require the adoption of
some indispensable measures, which may reduce the malady
suffered by parties on both sides of criminal litigation.
Accordingly we direct, the Home Department of every State
Government, to formulate a procedure for taking action against all
erring investigating/prosecuting officials/officers. All such erring
officials/officers identified, as responsible for failure of a
prosecution case, on account of sheer negligence or because of
culpable lapses, must suffer departmental action. The above
mechanism formulated would infuse seriousness in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:537
7 WA-2804-2024
performance of investigating and prosecuting duties, and would
ensure that investigation and prosecution are purposeful and
decisive. The instant direction shall also be given effect to within 6
months."
[Emphasis Supplied]
11. Fair investigation is the right of victim as well as accused and if
the investigation is not done in a proper manner under the provisions of
Cr.P.C. or BNSS, then certainly the High Court can issue such direction to
the police authorities in the interest of justice. While hearing the criminal
appeals, many times we have noticed the serious lapses on part of
Investigating Officer committed during the investigation which give benefits
to the accused persons. Therefore, it is necessary that before filing the
charge-sheet, senior police officer should examine the charge-sheet or
monitor investigation, especially in serious crimes such as murder, dacoity,
rape, crime against juvenile, POCSO, NDPS etc. In addition to above, we
direct to the Director General of Police to comply the directions issued by
the Apex Court in the case of Kishanbhai (supra), if already not done.
12. In view of the above, Writ Appeal stands dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ravi
