'Investigating Officer Made No Sincere Efforts To Trace Child': Patna High Court Orders CID To Reinvestigate 11 Yrs Old Kidnapping Case

Justice Anil Kumar Sinha observed, “From the discussion based upon the materials available on record, as mentioned herein above, the facts, which emerges is that the police did not investigate the present case regarding the kidnapping of a minor child, aged about five years, with required sensitivity and the investigation proceeded in a routine manner, where the Investigating Officers were frequently changed and altogether ten Investigating Officers have investigated the present case in piecemeal manner.”

“It also appears that the directions issued by the supervising officers, from time to time, were not carried out by the Investigating Officers. The Superintendent of Police, Siwan, in its counter affidavit, has also stated that show cause was issued and proceeding has been initiated against the erring police officers for their lapses. No serious effort on the part of the Superintendent of Police and other higher police officers of the police department appears to have been made by forming special team for nabbing the culprit(s) for recovery of the kidnapped minor child,” Justice added.

The bench also pointed out, “This Court has also noticed that for about four-anda-half years, no progress in the investigation was made and the case diary has been written in a routine manner. The investigation was not done in right manner and even the C.D.R. of the correct mobile number of the suspect was not called by the Investigating Officer.”

The development comes in a writ application filed by the father of the missing boy, seeking a directive to the relevant authorities to conclude their investigation.

According to the prosecution's account, as detailed in the First Information Report, the incident occurred on August 2, 2012, in the morning when the petitioner's then 5-years-old son disappeared from their residence. Distressed by the disappearance, the petitioner, along with relatives and friends, initiated a search for the child. During this search, they were informed by Khajuhari village residents, that in the late afternoon two individuals riding a motorcycle were seen forcibly taking a crying child, who was the petitioner's son, while covering his mouth. When the villagers raised an alarm, the motorcyclists hastily fled the scene.

The petitioner's grievance was rooted in the perceived lack of appropriate action taken by the police to recover his kidnapped minor son. He expressed his profound distress, noting that he had tirelessly sought assistance from various authorities to locate his son, but his pleas seemed to have fallen on deaf ears. In pursuit of help, he had submitted appeals to multiple officials, including the District Magistrate of Siwan, the Deputy Chief Minister of Bihar, the Superintendent of Police in Siwan, and the Director General of Police.

After hearing arguments from both parties and thoroughly reviewing the available evidence, the Court initially expressed its concern that the local police had conducted an inadequate and non-scientific investigation in the case, leading the petitioner to approach the Court in 2021.

Upon examining the case diary, the Court found clear evidence that the Investigating Officers and supervising authorities had not put sincere effort into locating the kidnapped child or identifying the individuals responsible for the crime.

The Court noted that the Investigating Officers had failed to investigate phone conversations between the prime suspect and the individual who was believed to have accompanied the suspect to the location where the suspect inadvertently made a call to the informant.

When the Court inquired about the source of pamphlets printed by the police for distribution in the locality and which agency had printed them, the Counsel for the respondent State was unable to provide an answer.

Furthermore, the Court observed that although it had issued several directives to the Investigating Officers during the investigation, there was no follow-up to ensure that these directives were actually carried out.

The Court also criticized the failure to promptly share a photograph of the abducted child on the web portal "trackthemissingchild.gov.in," established by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India.

In its criticism, the Court stated, “No step was taken to send the information for publication to the concerned department. In report 1, certain directions were issued. Apparently, there is a serious miss and gap in carrying out the investigation.”

In the interest of justice and to restore confidence in the investigation, the Court ordered the re-investigation of the case by the Crime Investigation Department of Bihar. The Assistant Director General of the Crime Investigation Department, Bihar, was instructed to appoint an officer of at least the rank of Superintendent of Police to assume responsibility for the case within one week.

The Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Siwan, to transfer all case records to the Crime Investigation Department within one week.

The Court emphasized that the Crime Investigation Department should expedite the re-investigation due to the seriousness of the case, which involved the abduction of a five-year-old child who had been missing for several years. The re-investigation should be completed within a reasonable timeframe and conducted in a scientifically sound manner.

Finally, the Court instructed the District Court to refrain from further proceedings in the matter until the Crime Investigation Department completed the re-investigation and submitted its final report.

Case Title: Arun Kumar Singh Alias Arun Singh vs. Nirmala Devi

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 104

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment