Summary
An NGO head and relatives of villagers killed in Dantewada in September and October 2009 sought a CBI investigation into alleged massacres by security forces and Salwa Judum, and compensation. The State and the CoBRA battalion said Naxalites who ambushed the forces killed the villagers. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition with Rs 5 lakh costs on the first petitioner. Investigation is transferred to the CBI only in rare and exceptional cases, and no one may insist on a particular agency. All FIRs had been investigated and charge-sheets filed against absconding Naxalites, the tribal petitioners' statements recorded by a District Judge in 2010 did not support the petition, and the petitioners knew nothing of the charge-sheets. The Court did not decide the Union's perjury application, but left the State or CBI free to act under Section 211 IPC or otherwise, unbarred by Section 195 CrPC.
Issues
- Whether a case was made out under Article 32 for transferring investigation of the FIRs concerning the Dantewada incidents of 17.09.2009 and 01.10.2009 to the CBI.
- Whether proceedings for perjury under Section 340 read with Section 195 CrPC, or other criminal action, should follow the finding that the petition's allegations were unsupported.
Provisions considered
- Article 32, Constitution of IndiaA direction for CBI investigation is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly, cautiously and only in exceptional situations, not merely because allegations are made against the local police (Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, K.V. Rajendran, Romila Thapar). (¶¶ 44, 46, 47, 48, 50, 53)
- Sections 195(1)(b) and 340, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973A complaint for perjury requires a false affidavit and the court's opinion that an inquiry is expedient, founded on a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance; whether a preliminary inquiry and hearing are mandatory is pending before a larger Bench. The Court declined to decide expediency, and held the Section 195 bar would not apply to action by the State or CBI (M.L. Sethi). (¶¶ 70, 72, 75, 77, 78, 79, 86, 87, 88, 96)
- Sections 191, 192, 193 and 211, Indian Penal Code, 1860A false affidavit is evidence under Section 191. Section 211 punishes falsely charging a person with an offence to a person in authority with intent to injure and knowing there is no lawful ground; prima facie, false information about a massacre by the police force was given in the FIRs (Santokh Singh). (¶¶ 70, 74, 79, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94)
Held
- Transfer of investigation to the CBI is not to be ordered on mere asking or as a matter of routine; it is confined to rare and exceptional cases where it is necessary to instil confidence, where high officials are involved, or where the investigation is prima facie tainted. Filing of a charge-sheet does not bar further investigation, but an aggrieved person cannot insist on investigation by an agency of his choice. (¶¶ 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53)
- All FIRs had been investigated and charge-sheets filed against named absconding Naxalites, and nothing in the investigation pointed to the police forces. The petitioners did not know of the charge-sheets or point out any infirmity in them, so no case for further investigation or re-investigation was made out. (¶¶ 27, 28, 55, 56, 57, 58, 65)
- Statements of petitioners 2 to 13 recorded by a District Judge in 2010 under the Court's directions did not support the massacre allegations against security forces and demolished the first petitioner's case; a grievance about the manner of recording them, raised for the first time after twelve years, could not be accepted. (¶¶ 59, 60, 61, 62, 63)
- Before sanctioning a perjury prosecution there must be a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance, found false against unimpeachable evidence, and the court must consider expediency; the Court did not precipitate that issue given the seriousness of the matter touching national security. (¶¶ 78, 79, 80, 83, 88)
- Since the investigation found that Naxals, not the police, were responsible, false information was prima facie given to the police. The State of Chhattisgarh or the CBI may take steps in accordance with law, not limited to Section 211 IPC and possibly including criminal conspiracy, without any final opinion by the Court; Section 195 CrPC would not bar such action. (¶¶ 92, 95, 96)
Result
Writ petition dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs 5,00,000 payable by petitioner no. 1 to the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority within four weeks. The Union's interlocutory application disposed of by granting the relief that the State of Chhattisgarh or CBI may take appropriate action in accordance with law.