New Delhi: “There is not an iota of material in the investigation on the basis of which even a finger can be pointed towards the members of the police force,” the Supreme Court said Thursday, as it rejected a petition filed by an activist and 12 tribals seeking CBI probe into the alleged extra-judicial killings by Chhattisgarh police and central security forces during anti-Maoist operations in Dantewada in 2009.
A bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and J.B. Pardiwala slapped Rs 5 lakh as cost on the activist for “furnishing false information”. It even held that investigation by the state police into the incidents revealed the killings were carried out by naxals and not security forces.
Activist Himanshu Kumar — who runs an NGO by the name of Vanvasi Chetna Ashram and the tribals, who claimed to be relatives of those killed during the alleged massacre — had moved the top court in 2009 seeking a CBI enquiry into the killings.
It was alleged by the petitioners that the state police had failed to initiate adequate action, as none of the eyewitnesses were questioned, nor any arrests were made based on their FIRs.
But the SC dismissed all these charges as false and held: “no case, worth the name, has been made out by the writ petitioners for any further investigation much less through an independent agency to be appointed by this Court”.
It gave Kumar four weeks to deposit the amount with the Supreme Court Legal Services, failing which it will be open to the appropriate authority to take steps in accordance with law.
It further went on to allow Union of India’s application to initiate a probe and take appropriate action to “identify and prosecute those who gave false statements blaming the security forces and may have conspired in this”.
In its application the Union of India had prayed the top court to allow the CBI or NIA to register an FIR and conduct an in-depth investigation to identity individuals or organisations who have been “conspiring, abetting and facilitating filing of petitions premised on false and fabricated evidence before the top court as well as before high courts with a motive to either deter the security agencies to act against the Left Wing (Naxal) militia by imputing false charges on them or to screen off the Left Wing (Naxal) militia from being brought to justice by creating a false narrative of victimisation before the courts.”
This is the second time that a bench led by Justice Khanwilkar has allowed investigation against the petitioners in a case demanding an independent enquiry by CBI.
A judgement delivered on 24 June by a bench headed by him and comprising justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T. Ravikumar had dismissed petitioner Zakia Jafri’s plea challenging a special investigation team’s clean chit to then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi over the 2002 riots. The verdict also said those who “kept the pot boiling” should be put “in the dock”.
A day later Gujarat Police arrested Teesta Setalvad, co-petitioner with Zakia and former director general of police R.B. Sreekumar, for allegedly giving false information to various courts and the SIT in a bid to tarnish the Prime Minister’s image. Both are at present in judicial custody.
Also read: People with half-truths using social media to scrutinise judicial process, says SC judge
‘Oblivious of the fact that all the FIRs were investigated’
The top court’s 94-page judgement in the tribal killings case is authored by Justice Pardiwala. It notes that the state police had filed chargesheets in all FIRs registered after the alleged massacre, and the same indicated that the brutal killings were carried out by naxalites.
In their petition Kumar and the tribals had alleged that Chhattisgarh Police, Special Police officers (SPOs), activists of Salwa Judum (group of vigilantes sponsored by the then Chhattisgarh Government) and paramilitary forces consisting of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and the Commando Battalion for Resolute Action were responsible for the alleged “brutal massacre” of tribals that took place on 17 September, 2009 and 1 October of the same year, in the villages of Gachhanpalli, Gompad and Belpocha respectively, situated in Dantewada district. They also demanded compensation for the families of those who died during the alleged extra-judicial killings.
All respondents contested the allegations in individual capacity. They termed the petitioners’ argument as false and fabricated, done with an attempt to mislead the court and derail the ongoing efforts of security forces to neutralise the “left-wing extremism movement” and the “armed left-wing extremists”.
They denied the accusations that there was no investigation into the killings. Chargesheets were filed in which all accused have been shown as absconding. However, material placed before the trial court shows that the allegations levelled by the petitioners are false and reckless, they said.
Following the petition, the top court in 2010 constituted a committee headed by a sitting district and sessions judge of Delhi to record the statements of all petitioners, except Kumar. However, the statements were recorded in the presence of Kumar and an interpreter, and the file was submitted to the top court and also given to all the parties.
On the basis of this report, the Centre filed an application earlier this year, and stated that none of the statements blamed security forces for the killings. All the petitioners/complainants testified that unknown persons came from the forests and killed the villagers. The complainants also said they were not present at the spot, as they had all run away in the jungle upon hearing shots being fired.
According to the Centre this report had mysteriously disappeared from the judicial files and had surfaced only in March 2022.
Referring to the committee’s report and the statements, the SC observed in its judgment Thursday: “the statements of the petitioners nos.2 to 13 recorded before the Judicial Officer demolishes the entire case put up by the petitioner no.1 (Kumar), who is running an NGO.”
The judgment extracted the statement of one of the complainants, Soyam Rama, who confessed to having “run away from the spot” when the firing happened and “could not see as to who had opened fire” and that he “would not be in a position to identify” the assailants.
The court rejected petitioners’ counsel, senior advocate Colin Gonsalves’s argument that the mode in which statements were recorded were incorrect. This grievance, it said, was being made for the first time in the past 12 years, which was too late in the day to cast aspersions of insinuations against the committee.
“Had the writ petitioners raised such a plea at the appropriate time and contemporaneously as regards the mode and manner of the recording of the statements, this Court would have passed necessary orders asking the Judicial Officer to record the further statements in a particular manner,” the court said.
On the charges of non-action by the state police, the court opined: “If we go by the tenor of the writ petition, it gives an impression that proper investigation is not being done and, therefore, the same should be handed over to the CBI.”
However, the court said, a probe has already been carried out and charge sheets have been filed.
“Unfortunately, neither the learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners nor any of the writ petitioners, more particularly, the writ petitioner no.1, the protagonist behind the filing of the present writ petition, running an NGO, has any idea about the charge sheets and the materials collected in the course of the investigation,” the court remarked.
It said it was surprised to know that Gonsalves was “absolutely oblivious of the fact that all the FIRs were investigated by the concerned investigating agencies and, at the end of the investigation, charge sheets came to be filed in different courts of the State of Chhattisgarh for the offences under the IPC like murder, dacoity, etc”.
(Edited by Poulomi Banerjee)
Also read: Out of jail in 2030 — how Abu Salem pushed India to honour its promise to Portugal