'Composition Of SIT A Mere Eye-Wash' : Supreme Court Forms Fresh SIT To Probe Alleged Abduction Of OBC Man By Madhya Pradesh Minister

The Supreme Court on August 6 has ordered a fresh composition of Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the whereabouts of a OBC person alleged to have been abducted and kept in illegal detention by Madhya Pradesh Minister and BJP MLA Govind Singh Rajput and his aides over a land dispute.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan found that the earlier SIT constituted by the Madhya Pradesh Police to investigate the allegations only consisted of constables and lower-ranking officials. The Court termed this SIT's composition as a "mere eye-wash."

Expressing dismay over the tardy probe in the missing case over eight years, the Supreme Court directed that the new SIT shall complete the investigation within four weeks/

"Owing to the serious nature of allegations and the persons whom such allegations are attributed, the composition of SIT is a mere eye-wash. It won't be possible at all for that SIT to take the investigation to a logical conclusion which can inspire the confidence of the family, near and dear ones of the victim or the public in general," the Court observed.

Background

The petitioner (OBC Mahasabha) has sought a Habeas Corpus from the Supreme Court to produce one Mansingh Patel belonging to the OBC community. Mahasabha claimed that one Sita Ram Patel- son of the Mansingh Patel-had made a complaint in 2016 alleging that his father was abducted due to land dispute and kept in illegal detention by Govind Singh Rajput and his aide.

The petitioner stated that instead of the police filing a first information report, a missing person complaint was lodged. The District Police thereafter 'enquired' into the complaint and recorded the statement of the family members of the missing person.

The petitioner claimed that during the enquiry, the son withdrew his application and later claimed that he was instigated to make a false complaint by Vinay Malaiya and Manoj Patel. Son also stated that there is no land dispute between his father and respondents.

As per the petitioner, Sita Ram subsequently filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court because despite approaching the police, the efforts have gone futile. However, he withdrew his writ petition for unknown reason.

In the meanwhile, Vinay Malaiya was granted anticipatory bail.

On September 25, 2023, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta confirmed the anticipatory bail granted to respondent Vinay Malaiya and issued certain directions. The Court had directed: "The Superintendent of Police, District Sagar to file an additional affidavit giving chronological details of the investigation conducted so far, along with the present status. The needful shall be done within two weeks."

In the affidavit, it was found that the allegations disclosed cognizable offence making it imperative upon the police authorities to register a case.

The OBC Mahasabha filed a writ petition claiming that despite constant efforts, the police did not register an FIR. But when the police did register an FIR in 2023, it stated that Sita Rama claimed to have said that his father has not gone missing and that he often goes on pilgrimage and does not come back for many days.

On May 5, 2023, a SIT was constituted by Superintendent of Police, Sagar for the search of 'missing persons' which primarily comprised of the officials in the rank of Constables, ASI etc.

Therefore, OBC Mahasabha petitioned before the Supreme Court seeking free and fair investigation in this case.

What did the Supreme Court say?

The Supreme Court stated that the primary question in the petition is: "The short question that falls for consideration in this case is whether the Police of District Sagar, having been apprised of the fact that as a sequel to some property dispute, the father of the complainant had gone missing, was obligated to take cognizance of the gravity of the reported crime and whether the local police has failed to hold a fair, free, independent and dispassionate investigation into the matter?"

Therefore, it answered the following issues.

On Mahasabha's locus: Vigilant section of society is expected to seek justice

The court considered the argument made by the Saurabh Mishra, Additional Advocate General for Madhya Pradesh, that the petition is not maintainable. However, the court said that it is not 'impression by the objection'. It said: "All that the petitioner – OBC Mahasabha has sought is only a fair investigation into the allegations of conspicuous disappearance of a person, who was robbed off his highly valuable property before he eclipsed from the scene."

The court observed that the reporting of commission of a cognisable offence is a statutory obligation. In this regard, it said: "The reporting of commission of a cognizable offence is a statutory obligation on one and all. Where such reporting has been discarded by the police, deliberately or otherwise, the vigilant section of society or social help groups are expected to espouse such cause for securing justice to the voiceless victims and/or those who have been silenced under mysterious circumstances."

On the allegations, the court remarked: "There is no gainsaying that the lurking suspicion in the mind of those who are known to the missing person ought to be satisfactorily removed, even in the interest of those against whom needle of suspicion is raised."

On the inability of the police to trace Mansingh Patel

Further, the court questioned the 2023 FIR where Sita Ram Patel is alleged to have stated that his father has not gone missing as per the Police. On this, the court said: "At this stage, we wish to address the statement said to have been made by Sita Ram Patel, which led to registration of FIR No.23/2023. Given that statement; (i) Mansingh Patel is not missing; and (ii) Mansingh Patel has been frequently coming and going from his home. If that is so, we fail to understand as to why the local police has not been able to trace out him and take a specific stand before us that the very allegation mentioned in Missing Report No.9/2016 is false and has no factual foundation."

The court stated that no iota of evidence exists to suggest that Mansingh Patel is alive or has been seen in recent years after he was reported to be missing in 2016. It said: "Even the latest affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, Sagar is conveniently silent about his whereabouts."

Directions passed to form new SIT

Therefore, the court had passed directions:

(i) The Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh is directed to constitute an SIT comprising of:

(a) An Officer in the rank of Inspector General of Police (as Head of SIT);

(b) An Officer in the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police;

(c) Another Officer in the rank of Superintendent or Additional Superintendent of Police – as members.

(ii) All the three officers shall be Direct Recruit members of the Indian Police Service having their roots in a State other than Madhya Pradesh, though serving in the Madhya Pradesh Cadre. The SIT shall be at liberty to associate some junior Police Officers to assist it in the course of investigation.

(iii) Missing Person Registration No.9/2016 shall be immediately registered as an FIR, though initially against unknown persons only. The FIR No.23/2023, shall, for the time being, be kept in abeyance and the SIT will not take cognizance thereof. In other words, the SIT will not take the version of the complainant Sita Ram Patel, as a gospel truth, knowing well that he keeps on changing his statement – for reasons best known to his conscience. We will not comment further in this regard. Least we say better it is.

(iv) The SIT is directed to join office bearers and members of the OBC – Mahasabha and other responsible persons of the area in the course of investigation. Their statements shall be video-graphed. In the case of vulnerable witnesses, their statements must be recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

(v) The measures such as witness protection; a congenial environment for recording statements under Section 161/164 Cr.P.C.; infusion of confidence to persuade people to come forward; etc., shall be meticulously taken.

(vi) The documents, including revenue record, indicating the genesis of the civil dispute re: ownership/transfer of land will be minutely scrutinized to find out as to what had actuated the sudden disappearance of Mansingh Patel.

(vii) The SIT shall conclude the investigation within four months. The necessary consequences shall follow thereafter.

(viii) Aggrieved parties will be at liberty to approach this Court, if need be to have recourse to other stringent measures.

Case Details: O.B.C. Mahasabha v The State of M.P & Ors, WP(Crl) No. 108/2023.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 581

Click Here To Read/Download Order