New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday came down heavily on the Maharashtra Police for not investigating allegations made by a 17-year-old boy that he was witness to a murder during the Akola riots of May 2023 and was himself attacked by the assailants, and directed the constitution of a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the matter.
A bench of Justices P.V. Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma ordered the Maharashtra Home Secretary to set up an SIT comprising police officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities to investigate the assault.
The court lamented that in the present case, the police were not “true to the call of duty”, which requires them to “shed their predilections and biases”.
“Needless to state, when members of the police force don their uniforms, they are required to shed their personal predilections and biases, be they religious, racial, casteist or otherwise. They must be true to the call of duty attached to their office and their uniform with absolute and total integrity. Unfortunately, in the case at hand, this did not happen,” the court said.
The order came on a petition filed by Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif, who claimed he was present at the spot on 13 May, 2023, when an auto-rickshaw driver was killed during the riots that broke out over a social media post. Sharif was also assaulted by two of the assailants who allegedly killed the auto driver.
Sharif alleged the police had not registered an FIR on his complaint regarding the attack on him nor did they record his statement in connection with the killing he witnessed. He said the police team had visited him in hospital where he was admitted following the attack. Later, his father lodged a formal complaint at the police station, demanding a probe into his son’s attack.
Sharif had first approached the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court, which rejected his plea for a direction to the police to register a case and doubted his narration.
According to Sharif, a good samaritan, on finding him injured at the spot, took him to a nearby hospital for treatment. Later, his father moved him to another private hospital where he got treated for three days and was discharged on 16 May, 2023.
While he was in hospital, a team of police officers visited him and recorded his statement. On 1 June, 2023, Sharif’s father lodged written complaints at the Akola police station. Yet, no FIR was registered to investigate the attack on Sharif, his petition states.
According to Sharif, the assailants assaulted the auto driver because they mistook him for a Muslim, which he was not. The confusion arose because the autorickshaw the man drove belonged to a Muslim. The murder victim was identified as Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad.
Sharif said in his petition that on making inquiries into the murder case, he learnt that the Akola police, at the behest of the victim’s family, had registered an FIR against Muslim community members. However, Sharif, who had witnessed the incident, was not contacted by the police.
He also claimed that he identified one of the assailants after he noticed his photograph on the flex board of a politician belonging to the Shiv Sena.
The Maharashtra government reiterated in the Supreme Court the stand it had taken before the Bombay HC—raising doubts over the authenticity of Sharif’s statement.
An affidavit filed by the inspector of a local police station maintained that the 11 accused arrested for the murder had made confessional statements, which also led to admissible recoveries during the probe.
On the issue of registering an FIR to probe the assault on Sharif, the police denied recording his statement while he in hospital. The police affidavit said he was unfit to give a statement when he was receiving treatment.
Sharif’s claim of being a witness (to the murder) was never substantiated during investigation nor was credible material produced to show that the police were aware of his status as such before completion of the investigation, the state told the SC.
Also Read: Why SC chose the SIT route to look into allegations against Reliance’s Vantara in Gujarat
SC’s observations
The SC rejected the Maharashtra government’s affidavit, while expressing concern at the “sheer carelessness” of the police in the case. It took serious objection that no senior officer, but an inspector, chose to file an affidavit in the highest court of the country where a serious issue was raised.
This was done even as serious allegations of dereliction of duty were made against the superintendent of police, who, the court added, was impleaded by name in the case.
The SC bench faulted the high court for accepting the police’s reason to not pursue Sharif’s complaint. The police had said it was for Sharif and his relatives to follow-up with the police to take necessary steps in that regard and that the police were not required to take any action.
The court held that the police were under legal obligation to initiate action on receiving information about a cognisable offence.
“Once information relating to commission of a cognisable offence is given to the officer-in-charge of a police station, the investigative machinery is required to be set in motion. If the information received revealed commission of a cognisable offence, it is mandatory to record the substance of the information in a book to be kept by the officer in the prescribed form,” the bench said.
It noted that the diary maintained at the Akola police station and medical records established that Sharif was attacked. At the very least, a case of assault, a cognisable offence, required decisive and prompt action on the part of the police as soon as they came to know about it, it added.
“In any event, once the police station was informed of a medico-legal case involving the appellant who was admitted in the hospital in connection therewith, in an injured condition, and as the police would have been well aware of the riots that were taking place, a duty was cast upon the police to register the cognisable offence that had been brought to their notice,” the bench said.
The court also observed that the complaint made by Sharif’s father to the superintendent of police was not looked into by the senior police officer.
“There is no explanation forthcoming as to whether he even undertook an inquiry to satisfy himself about the truth or otherwise of the information received, as mandated by the provision. This conduct on the part of a superior police officer of no less a rank than a superintendent of police is indeed a cause for great concern,” the court said.
Sharif’s claim that an autorickshaw driver was attacked in the belief that he was a Muslim had to be ascertained after thorough and proper investigation, the court added.
“When the appellant claimed that he could identify one of the four assailants, that claim also required to be followed up with detailed investigation by ascertaining the location of the person so identified at the relevant time through mobile phone location, call data records, etc,” the bench said.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: Legal aid, a decade delayed: Uttarakhand convict with psychosis spent 10 yrs in jail without appeal