Investigating Officer's improper enquiry into the hit and run case against accused police officer invites rebuke from Bombay High Court

Attempt by an investigating officer (IO) in a hit and run case to shield the accused who is also a police officer, invited strong rebuke from the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court which directed ordered a Department Enquiry against the IO (Mohammed Zaheer v. State of Maharashtra)..The Bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge and BU Debadwar directed the Commissioner of Police to issue appropriate chargesheet-cum-show cause notice and follow the procedure as is laid down in law and the service conditions applicable for conducting a Departmental Enquiry against the IO.."Needless to state, if he is found guilty, we would expect maximum punishment to be awarded to him, since this is the only way that the faith and trust of the common man and the public at large would be reposed in the police machinery, which otherwise is facing a flak for it’s role in such cases," the Court said. This direction of this Court shall be effected by the Commissioner of Police, forthwith, the Court added. .The judgment was delivered in a petition filed by the father of the deceased daughter killed in the accident..The petitioner alleged in his plea that the investigating officer was trying to protect the accused officer who was in service at the same police station where the crime was registered and within whose jurisdiction the offence occurred..He prayed for transfer of investigation to the Crime Investigation Department and an impartial inquiry into the lapses of the IO..A Bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge and BU Debadwar was informed that action has been initiated against the IO for not conducting a thorough investigation by ordering him to show cause why his increment for one year should not be stopped permanently by way of punishment..The Court said that stoppage of increment for one year would not be commensurate to the gravity and seriousness of the conduct of the IO.."It would be an eye wash. The Court cannot be a silent spectator and close its eyes or turn a Nelson’s eye, as if it is helpless, in such a case. We would be failing in our duty, if we blink at such a conduct of a police officer," the Court said. .Stopping increment for one year will not be commensurate to the gravity and seriousness of the conduct of the IO.Bombay High Court .Further, the Court also noted that the accused officer continued to be a part of the said police station until he was subsequently trapped in an anti- corruption bribery case in October, 2020 and placed under suspension. ."We would have appreciated, if the accused Sub- Inspector would have been immediately transferred out of the jurisdiction of the said police station," the Court went on to note. .The Court observed that an investigating officer is supposed to investigate the crime in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure / the procedure applicable and to the best of his ability. "He is not supposed to indulge in any such act during investigation, which would have a semblance or a flavour of the I.O. deliberately leaving loopholes in the investigation, so as to tacitly create an advantage in favour of the accused,” it said. .We would be failing in our duty, if we blink at such a conduct of a police officer. Bombay High Court .Earlier, when the case was heard in December 2020 at the admission stage, a co-ordinate bench of the High Court had made certain similar observations that when there are allegations against police personnel, extra care needs to be taken by the IO.“Such officer is not expected to protect the person of his own department but he needs to be more serious as the image of the department is involved in such matters,” the Court had said..It had also directed an officer of a higher level like the Commissioner of Police to look into the matter personally..Pursuant to the same, a report was submitted by the Commissioner of Police which highlighted certain impressions of the investigation conducted by the IO which the Court deduced was a failure on the part of IO to conduct a proper investigation..The Court refused to accept the contention of public prosecutors DR Kale and KS Patil that the errors on the part of the IO were inadvertent mistakes.“We cannot accept such contention for the reason that an experienced I.O. would never commit such acts inadvertently,” the Court opined..Deficiencies crept into the prosecution case right from the time when the complaint was registered with the police station damaging the case, the Court noted..The Commissioner of Police was directed to issue appropriate chargesheet-cum-show cause notice and follow procedure of enquiry and service conditions applicable..If the inspector is found guilty, then maximum punishment ought to be awarded to him “since this is the only way that the faith and trust of the common man and the public at large would be reposed in the police machinery, which otherwise is facing a flak for it’s role in such cases”..The court also appreciated the efforts put in but the Commissioner while conducting the enquiry pursuant to their earlier directions and drawing his observations without fear or favour.“We equally find it appropriate to record our high appreciation for the efforts put in by the Commissioner of Police while conducting the enquiry pursuant to our order. We can surely say that he has conducted the enquiry with great promptitude and by applying his investigation skills.”.Before concluding the order, the Court also observed that any issued pertaining to evidence and witnesses could be raised before the trial court, as their interference on those aspects would lead to entering into a parallel trial in the case..[Read judgment here].[Read interim order of December 11, 2020 here]