SUPREME COURT DIRECTS POLICE OFFICERS TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW WHILE SUBMITTING THE CHARGESHEET

INTRODUCTION

A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal passed an Order dated 12.03.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 1511 Of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2874 Of 2023) in Dablu Kujur Vs. The State Of Jharkhand and held that as the trial was at the concluding stages, the Supreme Court denied the grant of Bail and further directed the Police Officers of every State to comply with directions while submitting the Chargesheet/Report on the completion of the investigation.

FACTS

The present case originated from the High Court of Ranchi and revolved around an Appeal lodged by the Appellant-Accused, Dablu Kujur. The Appellant-Accused had challenged the Order dated 17.01.2023 of the High Court in B.A. No. 11895 of 2022. The Appellant-Accused’s plea sought his release on Bail in the FIR registered at Sukhdeonagar Police Station bearing Case No. 238/2022 dated 30.05.2022 for the offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC) (Punishment for murder), Section 120-B/34 of IPC (Concealing design to commit offence punishable with imprisonment), Section 25(1-B)A of the Arms Act, 1959 (Punishment for certain offences), read with Section 26 of the Arms Act (Secret contraventions), Section 27 of the Arms Act (Punishment for using arms, etc.) and Section 35 of the Arms Act (Criminal responsibility of persons in occupation of premises in certain cases).

During the course of the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court observed that the trial was in its concluding stages before the Ld. Trial Court. The Apex Court observed that all the witnesses had been examined by the prosecution except one witness who was yet to be examined.

That the Supreme Court, denied the grant of Bail to the Appellant-Accused as the proceeding at the Ld. Trial Court were at their final stage. The Supreme Court shed light upon the preceding Order dated 17.07.2023 given by a different Bench comprising of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna which was as follows:

“The learned Counsel for the State of Jharkhand states that Sections 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 have been SLP(Crl.) No. 2874/2023 invoked against the petitioner – Dablu Kujur. Having gone through the Chargesheet, we must observe that it is bereft of any details and particulars. The Director General of Police (DGP), State of Jharkhand will examine whether the said Chargesheet is in accordance with law, and if such Chargesheets are being filed, appropriate steps should be taken in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The DGP, State of Jharkhand will file an action report within a period of four weeks from today. We are told that similar Chargesheets bereft of details and particulars are being filed in the States of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. A copy of this order will also be sent to the relevant DGPs for the States of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, who will submit their respective reports on the steps taken by them within four weeks from today. Keeping in view the facts of the present case, we are inclined to direct the trial court to examine the public witnesses within a period of four months from today, without fail. Status report along with copy of the order sheets will be filed immediately upon completion of four months. List for consideration and orders in the first half of December 2023”.

The said Order highlighted the deficiencies in the Chargesheet submitted by the Police in relation to this case. The Supreme Court expressed its concerns over the lack of details and specifics, deeming it inadequate.

The Supreme Court directed the Director General of the Police (DGP) of Jharkhand, to review the Chargesheet’s compliance in accordance with the law. Subsequently, the Affidavits were filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar with regard to the steps taken/being taken by them for submitting the Chargesheets/Police Reports in accordance with law.

Further, the Court observed that the Police Report submitted by the Police under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P.C.) (Report of police officer on completion of investigation) was a very important document from the viewpoint of the Prosecution, the defence and the Court. The Apex Court deemed it necessary to elaborately deal with the various aspects involved in the said provision. The Bench further observed that it was incumbent on the part of the Investigating Officer to strictly comply with the requirements of the said provisions, as noncompliance thereof can give rise to many legal issues in the Court of law.

The Supreme Court emphasized the significance of compliance with Section 173 (2) of the Cr. P.C, and stressed on the importance of a comprehensive and detailed Police Report. The Supreme Court further stated that the Chargesheet is nothing but the final report of the Police Officer under Section 173 (2) of Cr. P.C. It is an opinion or intimation of the investigating officer to the concerned court that on the material collected during the course of an investigation, an offence appears to have been committed by the particular person or persons, or that no offence appears to have been committed.

When such a Police Report concludes that an offence appears to have been committed by a particular person or persons, the Magistrate has three options: “(i) he may accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process, (ii) he may direct further investigation under Sub-Section (3) of Section 156 and require the police to make a further report, or (iii) he may disagree with the report and discharge the accused or drop the proceedings. If such Police Report concludes that no offence appears to have been committed, the Magistrate again has three options: (i) he may accept the report and drop the proceedings, or (ii) he may disagree with the report and taking the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, take cognizance of the offence and issue process, or (iii) he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under sub-section (3) of Section 156.”

The Apex Court further held that according to the provisions of Section 173 of Cr. P.C, the Police Report on completion of the investigation shall contain the following:

“(i) A report in the form prescribed by the State Government stating-

(a) the names of the parties;

(b) the nature of the information;

(c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;

(e) whether the accused has been arrested;

(f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties;

(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170.

(h) Whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under [sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB] or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)”

(ii) If upon the completion of investigation, there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, the Police officer in charge shall clearly state in the Report about the compliance of Section 169 Cr.PC.

(iii) When the report in respect of a case to which Section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report, all the documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation; and the statements recorded under Section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.

(iv) In case of further investigation, the Police officer in charge shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed and shall also comply with the details mentioned in the above sub para (i) to (iii).”

CONCLUSION AND ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court held that as the trial was at the concluding stages, the Court denied the grant of Bail to the Appellant-Accused. Further, the Apex Court directed that the officer in charge of the police stations in every State shall strictly comply with the directions and a detailed report shall be made, and the non-compliance thereof shall be strictly viewed by the concerned Courts in which the Police Reports are submitted.

Kartik Khandekar

Associate

Hansen International Law Firm