Allahabad HC Directs UP DGP To Train Officers On Manner Of Conducting Investigations In View Of SC's Prakash Singh Ruling
The Allahabad High Court recently directed the Director General of Police, U.P. to issue a circular/order informing all the investigating Officers through respective Superintendents of Police, the manner in which investigations to be carried out. The Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal also directed him to ensure that all the Investigating officers are given periodic training and that the...
The Allahabad High Court recently directed the Director General of Police, U.P. to issue a circular/order informing all the investigating Officers through respective Superintendents of Police, the manner in which investigations to be carried out.
The Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal also directed him to ensure that all the Investigating officers are given periodic training and that the first phase of periodic training be completed within one year after drawing a time-table/ roaster for said training.
The training has been directed to take place in various Police Academies of the State including training for forensic and scientific investigation.
Besides this, the Director-General of UP Police has also been directed to submit the first report before the Registrar General before the expiry of three months as to the steps taken from rendering training on the aspect of the investigation to all the Investigating Officers posted in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The D.G.P. concerned has also been directed to furnish 2nd, 3rd and 4th report at quarterly intervals, giving details of persons deputed for training, resources deployed, and details of persons, who could not be deputed for training or who refused to undergo training.
Importantly, the Court noted that the order had been made in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh vs. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1.
In Prakash Singh's Case (supra), the Apex Court had instructed central and state governments to comply with a set of 7 directives related to operational reform and functional autonomy of the police.
The Apex Court had also said that there should be a Public Complaints Authority at district level to examine the complaints from the public on police excesses, arbitrary arrests and detentions, false implications in criminal cases, custodial violence etc. and for making necessary recommendations.
Case background
The Court was hearing a Habeas Petition filed by one Pradeep Kumar Chauhan seeking production of on Bandana, claiming that she is illiterate and that is his dully wedded wife.
On the other hand, the A.G.A. produced her school certificate issued by Head Master of Saraswati Public School, showing she is around 17 year of age, to which, the counsel for the petitioner was granted 10 days' time to file a counter affidavit to this certificate along with the cogent documentary evidence in regard to her date of birth.
Further, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Investigating Officer got examined the corpus (in Novmeber 2019) at a Hospital by the concerned radiologist and Chief Medial Officer whereupon in the examination, age of the victim had been determined to be 19 years.
It was also pointed out that in her Section 164 CrPC statement, taken in November 2019, the victim had admitted that she and petitioner No.1 Pradeep Kumar Chauhan were studying in the same school.
Therefore, it was contended that in the light of this statement given by the victim, the conduct of Investigating Officer becomes doubtful.
Noting these circumstances, the Court observed thus:
"It appears that either Investigating Officer is not aware of the procedure and the provisions contained in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 or with a view to shield the accused person, he has directed the victim to undergo a medical examination."
Therefore, the UP Police DGP was directed to conduct an inquiry to be carried out in relation to be alleged misconduct of the Investigating Officer of the instant case and to take strict disciplinary action against the Investigating Officer, who conducted the Investigation.
Importantly, Several States remain in contempt of the Supreme Court's judgment and have not implemented the ruling of Prakash Singh.
In June 2020, an application was filed before the Supreme Court (by Amicus Sr Adv Raju Ramachandran), suggesting measures for speedy and effective implementation of the Prakash Singh ruling for systemic police reforms.
Recently, Madras High Court took note of the suicides and desertions within the police force while observing that "there is no mechanism available in the Police Force and that is s the reason why so many genuine grievances of the Police could not be addressed."
Noting that Criminal cases suffer because of lack of adequate investigation, the Calcutta High Court had, last year, observed thus,
"It is high time that police reforms are introduced in this State to bifurcate the law and order wing from the investigating wing."
The Bench of Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Arijit Banerjee was hearing a case of a missing girl, wherein despite time being afforded to the State, it further sought time to locate the missing girl.
Case title - Pradeep Kumar Chauhan And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Read Order