Political Rivalry and Unsolved Murder: Supreme Court Directs Fresh Investigation

This case involves a petition filed by Amar Nath Chaubey, the son of Shri Ram Bihari Chaubey, who was murdered in his residence at Village Shrikanthpur, Chaubepur, Varanasi, on December 4, 2015. The petitioner had sought intervention due to the lack of progress in the investigation, which he claimed was being obstructed by powerful political figures. The matter reached the Supreme Court after the Allahabad High Court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s plea for a CBI investigation into the murder. The petitioners argued that the investigation conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Police had been delayed, improperly handled, and lacked transparency.

Background of the Case

On the morning of December 4, 2015, Shri Ram Bihari Chaubey was shot dead by four assailants who arrived at his residence on motorcycles. Two of them entered the house and killed him, while the other two waited outside. An FIR was registered under Sections 302, 147, 148, and 149 of the IPC at the Chaubepur Police Station. The petitioner, who was dissatisfied with the pace and quality of the investigation, sought the intervention of the High Court to ensure a fair investigation, especially considering the involvement of powerful political figures in the region.

The petitioner alleged that the police had not been thorough in their investigation and that several officers involved had been changed frequently. Additionally, the petitioner noted that although a charge sheet had been filed against some suspects, the investigation against others, including the key conspirator, respondent No. 5, was still pending. The High Court, however, dismissed the petitioner’s plea, and the Supreme Court was then approached to intervene.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner, Amar Nath Chaubey, presented the following key arguments:

• Interference and Lack of Progress: The petitioner argued that the investigation was severely hindered by political interference, which led to delays and irregularities. He pointed out that the police had changed the investigating officers multiple times, further delaying the investigation process.
• Role of Respondent No. 5: The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 5 was directly involved in the murder and had conspired with the other accused. He contended that despite sufficient evidence pointing to the involvement of respondent No. 5, the police had not taken adequate steps to arrest him or to properly investigate the conspiracy behind the murder.
• Failure to Investigate Properly: The petitioner further argued that the police had not carried out the investigation diligently and had failed to question crucial witnesses. He also noted the lack of progress despite the police receiving information from an informant about the murder conspiracy.
• Request for CBI Inquiry: The petitioner demanded a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into the case, given the complexity of the situation and the potential bias in the local police investigation. He stressed that only an impartial CBI inquiry could bring justice in this case.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents, including the Uttar Pradesh Police and respondent No. 5, presented their arguments:

• Challenge to CBI Inquiry: The respondents argued that there was no necessity for a CBI inquiry, as the investigation was proceeding in accordance with the law. They contended that the police were taking appropriate action, and there was no substantial reason to transfer the case to the CBI.
• Investigation in Progress: The respondents pointed out that the charge sheet had already been filed against some of the accused, and investigations into the remaining suspects were ongoing. They claimed that the police were doing their best to uncover the truth and that the petitioner’s claims of political interference were not substantiated by concrete evidence.
• Lack of Evidence: The respondents disputed the petitioner’s claims regarding respondent No. 5’s involvement. They contended that there was no conclusive evidence linking respondent No. 5 to the murder, and therefore, the investigation could not be based on assumptions or speculations.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed the situation, taking into account the following points:

• Investigation and Delay: The Court observed that while the investigation had started promptly after the FIR was lodged, there were significant delays in bringing the suspects to trial, particularly with regard to respondent No. 5. The Court noted the petitioner’s concerns about frequent changes in investigating officers, which had caused disruptions in the investigation.
• Political Interference: The Court noted the petitioner’s argument about political interference in the investigation but also emphasized that such claims should be backed by substantial evidence. The Court acknowledged that in some cases, the involvement of political figures could hinder the proper functioning of the police but stressed the need for a fair and transparent investigation.
• Need for CBI Inquiry: The Court discussed the appropriateness of transferring the case to the CBI. The Court emphasized that while the CBI has the expertise to handle complex investigations, such a transfer should be made only in exceptional cases where there is a clear indication of bias or irregularities in the investigation. The Court noted that there was no such clear evidence in this case that warranted a CBI inquiry.
• Case Investigation Progress: The Court considered the progress made in the investigation, particularly the filing of the charge sheet and the identification of the accused. However, it also noted that further investigation was necessary to ensure that all aspects of the case were thoroughly examined, especially with regard to respondent No. 5.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court made the following observations in its judgment:

“The investigation has been unduly delayed and there are valid concerns about the lack of progress in investigating the involvement of respondent No. 5. The police have failed to provide conclusive evidence of the conspiracy despite credible information, which is a serious concern.”

The Court further directed:

“In view of the grave nature of the allegations and the irregularities in the investigation, we direct that a new investigation be carried out under the supervision of a senior officer. The investigation should be completed within two months and a final report should be submitted to this Court.”

The Court appointed a senior officer, Shri Satyarth Anirudh Pankaj, I.P.S., to oversee the investigation, ensuring that it is conducted thoroughly and without political interference. The Court instructed the Uttar Pradesh Police to ensure that all necessary resources and personnel were made available for the investigation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment emphasizes the importance of thorough and unbiased investigations, particularly in cases involving political rivalry and powerful individuals. The decision to appoint a senior officer to oversee the investigation highlights the Court’s commitment to ensuring justice and transparency in high-profile cases. The ruling underscores that while the police have the primary duty to investigate, the judiciary plays a critical role in ensuring that investigations are carried out in a fair and timely manner, especially in cases where there is potential for political influence.

Petitioner Name: Amar Nath Chaubey.
Respondent Name: Union of India and Others.
Judgment By: Justice R.F. Nariman, Justice Navin Sinha, Justice Krishna Murari.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 14-12-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Amar Nath Chaubey vs Union of India and O Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 14-12-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Extortion and Blackmail
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Judgment by Rohinton Fali Nariman
See all petitions in Judgment by Navin Sinha
See all petitions in Judgment by Krishna Murari
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category