Case Name- Sanjay Dubey V. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023
Bench- Justice Krishna Murari
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Facts
The case revolves around a situation where the appellant was an Inspector of Sleemanabad Police Station, Katni where an FIR was registered against the accused therein, one Shiv Kumar Kushwah (herein referred to as accused) under Sections 376 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, The Forensic Science Laboratory Report (hereinafter referred to as the “FSL Report”) was forwarded to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Katni on 25.10.2021. The FSL Report was forwarded to the appellant with a note that DNA examination as per guidelines be undertaken. However, the DNA examination was not carried out. In the meantime, the accused filed an application seeking bail before the High Court. During the proceedings, the High Court called for the case-diary, but the FSL Report was not included therewith. This led the High Court to seek the personal appearance of the Superintendent of Police, Katni and the In-charge of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Jabalpur. On 21.09.2022, the duo mentioned supra appeared before the High Court, and informed that the FSL Report was sent to the office of Superintendent of Police, Katni on 25.10.2021. The Superintendent of Police, Katni stated that the FSL report was forwarded to the appellant along with communication dated 27.10.2021, with a note that DNA examination as per guidelines be carried out. However, the same was not done, as the appellant took the stand that the concerned Woman Sub-Inspector had not brought the FSL Report to his knowledge. The learned Government Advocate for the State stated before the High Court that the case-diary had been received in the Office of the learned Advocate General on 13.09.2022, but the FSL Report was not included therewith. This prompted the High Court to pass the Impugned Judgment, in which it was found, albeit prima facie, the appellant being guilty of dereliction of duty. Further, it was observed in the Impugned Judgment that the appellant is not fit to be assigned any important responsibility in the Police Department and is unfit to hold any responsible post. It has further been noted that the Superintendent of Police, Katni had already line-attached the appellant and was initiating enquiry for imposition of major penalty, for which he would get conducted a preliminary enquiry by the Additional Superintendent of Police and forward the report to the Disciplinary Authority for imposition of a major penalty. The Impugned Judgment also records a ‘direction’ issued to take appropriate action against the appellant for dereliction of duty, insubordination and causing undue disruption in the proceedings of the High Court.
Issues
Several key issues were raised in this case. Following is a detailed enumeration of the issues:-
What was the reason for the appellant's failure to carry out the DNA examination as directed in the FSL Report?
The appellant’s failure to carry out the DNA examination lies in the fact that a note was attached to the FSL report which clearly mentioned that DNA examination as per procedure has been conducted, however the appellant’s mistake lies in his duty to verify all the documents especially those dealing with such heinous crime with sincerity and caution.
How did the lack of inclusion of the FSL Report in the case-diary affect the proceedings before the High Court?
The Court caught itself in a dilemma of whether to grant the accused bail or not. Even though the bail application was rejected, the court found grave lapses on the part of the police/investigative machinery, which may have fatal consequences on the justice delivery system.
In what ways does the High Court view the appellant's actions as dereliction of duty?
Learned counsel for the State submitted that the appellant had, clearly, exhibited insubordination, incompetence and, dereliction of duty in an important matter and thus, in any way, was liable to be proceeded against. It was submitted that the Departmental Committee concerned had also conducted an enquiry where the appellant and some other officials were found negligent in performing their duties in providing the FSL Report along with the case-diary besides suppressing material documents.
What consequences does the appellant face as a result of the High Court's findings on his conduct regarding the case?
The Superintendent of Police, Katni, itself realised lapses had crept into the investigation, and decided to initiate proceedings against the appellant (and others), However, it is made clear that any observation made by the High Court in relation to the appellant in the judgement impugned shall not cause any prejudice to him in the departmental proceedings, which shall take its own course, in accordance with law, and after providing full and effective opportunity to the appellant
What measures are being taken regarding disciplinary action against the appellant, and what process will be followed?
A departmental enquiry against the appellant has been directed by the court and the court further stated its intention of non-interference in the proceedings. It also mentioned giving the appellant a fair chance to prove his innocence.
To what extent does this case raise concerns about insubordination within the police hierarchy?
This case reveals the grave lapses undertaken the police department i its inquiry that would further give the accused a chance to escape punishments, especially the one associated with the rape of a minor. Such kind of mistakes are not acceptable as they tarnish the well built image of the Police department as well as the foundation of justice. It also represents grave subordination within the police hierarchy.
What does the High Court's ruling imply about the standards of responsibility expected from police officers in handling criminal investigations?
The High Court implies that the responsibility expected from police officers in handling criminal cases is that they handle it in a very cautious and alert manner and make sure that all the necessary documents or proofs reach the court safely which could prove the accused’s guilt or innocence and hence maintain the principle of justice made in fair terms.
Judgement
While respectfully reiterating the judgement in State of Gujarat v Kishanbhai, (2014) 5 SCC 108, wherein the Court opined and directed “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 the aforesaid responsibility. The consideration at the hands of the above Committee, should be utilised for crystallising 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.” , drawing an analogy therefrom, as the lapses are grave, and additionally, but importantly, the factum that the authority viz. the Superintendent of Police, Katni, itself realised lapses had crept into the investigation, and decided to initiate proceedings against the appellant (and others), the operative portion of the judgement impugned by the High Court, becomes, merely reiterative, perhaps in more direct terms, of what had been stated before it. As such, purely, in the extant facts and circumstances, the Impugned Judgment does not warrant any interference by this Court. We propose no order as to costs. In sum, on an overall circumspection, and in view of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, the instant appeal deserves to be, and is, dismissed, with the caveat that the High Court’s observations are not to be treated as findings against the appellant. However, it is made clear that any observation(s) made by the High Court in relation to the appellant in the judgement impugned shall not cause any prejudice to him in the departmental proceedings, which shall take its own course, in accordance with law, and after providing full and effective opportunity to the appellant. The appellant would be entitled to raise all grounds and contentions, as may be available to him, in facts and law, in the departmental proceedings. Our observations aforesaid, equally, will not prejudice the appellant, nor shall they be used against the accused.
Objective
The objective of this case comment is to examine the actions of the appellant, an Inspector at the Sleemanabad Police Station, in relation to the failure to conduct a DNA examination as mandated by the Forensic Science Laboratory Report. This analysis highlights the implications of negligence in the judicial proceedings and the potential impact on the rights of the accused and the complainant involved in the case.
Another key aim is to assess the findings of the High Court regarding the appellant’s alleged dereliction of duty and insubordination. Additionally, this comment discusses the consequences faced by the appellant as a result of the High Court's ruling, including the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the potential implications for his career in the police department.
The commentary also evaluates the role of judicial oversight in ensuring that critical evidence is adequately considered in legal proceedings. It analysed how the absence of the FSL Report in the case-diary affected the High Court's proceedings and contributed to the necessity for personal appearances from senior police officials.
Lastly, the comment aims to reflect on the societal implications of this case, particularly in terms of public trust in law enforcement and the judicial system, and how such lapses in duty may affect perceptions of justice in sexual assault cases.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the case surrounding the negligence exhibited by the appellant, an Inspector at the Sleemanabad Police Station, underscores critical issues related to accountability and procedural adherence within law enforcement. The failure to conduct the mandated DNA examination not only reflects a dereliction of duty but also poses significant risks to the integrity of the judicial process and the rights of all parties involved in the case. The High Court's ruling serves as a crucial reminder of the standards expected from police officers in managing forensic evidence and underscores the importance of transparency and diligence in criminal proceedings.
The actions taken by the High Court to address these shortcomings highlight the essential role of judicial oversight in maintaining the rule of law and ensuring that justice is served. Furthermore, the disciplinary measures initiated against the appellant signal a firm stand against insubordination and negligence in police conduct. Ultimately, this case serves as a pivotal lesson for law enforcement agencies, emphasizing the need for continuous training, accountability, and adherence to protocols to foster public confidence in the justice system. The management of evidence, especially in sensitive cases such as sexual assault, demands meticulous care and commitment, ensuring that justice is not only pursued but also effectively delivered.
By Isha Patel
Dr. DY Patil Law College, Pune
Intern at Nyaya Nishtha