Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar issued directions to set up Serious Crimes Investigation Supervising Team to supervise investigation.        

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court held this in the case of Sunit @ Sumit Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. 

What was the Background of Sunit @ Sumit Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Case? 

• The incident alleged in this case took place on 18th June 2020. The applicant was arrested on 2nd December 2020 and has been in custody since then. 
• The applicant had been lodged in jail since last more than 3 years and 8 months and it is likely that the conclusion of the trial would take a lot of time.  
• The case was registered against the accused under Section 302, 34, 450, 397, 398, 114, 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959.  
• The present application was the applicant’s sixth bail application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC))  
• Out of the earlier 5 applications, 3 applications have been dismissed as withdrawn and the two have been allowed temporarily on account of applicant suffering from illness. 
• It is to be noted that in the present case initially only a mobile phone was seized but after three days his pant was also seized which according to the prosecution was worn by the applicant at the time of the incident. 
• It was the case of the accused that the DNA report was falsely made up as it is not possible that the applicant would keep his pants for 6 months in the same condition to be recovered by the prosecution. 
• The State however contended that there was no case for grant of bail. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court observed that the DNA report is in respect of a pant that was seized 6 months after the date of incident. 
• Also, no other material relating to robbery has been seized from the applicant. 
• Considering the fact that only 11 witnesses were examined, and 18 more witnesses were yet to be examined, the Court granted bail to the accused. 
• Accordingly, the Court granted the accused bail. 
• The Court further observed that there were serious lapses in the investigation conducted by the investigating officer.  
  • The Court also observed that this is not an isolated incident. Infact there have been cases earlier as well where the Court failed to discharge the duty with due diligence.

What are the Directions issued by the High Court to the Director General of the Police, M.P., Bhopal? 

• The Court observed in some cases it is only due to the serious lapses committed by the Investigating officer and the Forensic experts that the benefit of doubt is given to the accused. 
• The Court lamented that when a criminal trial is doomed from the beginning because of a slipshod investigation it is nothing but a sheer misuse of process of the Court. 
• Thus, to counter the above the Court directed the Director General of Police, M.P., Bhopal to form a Serious Crimes Investigation Supervising Team. 
• Serious Crimes Investigation Supervising Team (SCIST) 
  • Members: 2 members  
    • headed by a senior level police officer, not below the rank of an experienced IPS officer.  
    • The other would be officer of the Police department not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police who may be chosen by the above said IPS Officer. 
  • Purpose: 
    • The team would supervise the investigation. 
    • The Investigating Officer shall also report and apprise the Team about the progress of the investigation for its inputs, to ensure that there are no lapses in the investigation, and the loopholes are plugged at the right time. 
    • The said team, together with the investigating officer, shall be held responsible for any lapses in the investigation

What are the Major Factors Responsible for Defective or Incomplete Investigations? 

• The Investigating officers commit several mistakes, leaving behind many shortcomings during the process of investigation of crime. Certain causes of defective investigation are as follows: 
  • Ignorance of the relevant law relating to investigations.  
  • Lack of proper training of the investigating officers.  
  • Non-availability of scientific and technical assistance.  
  • Workload  
  • Non-professionalism & perfunctory approach towards investigation. 
  • Delayed reaching to the scene of crime.  
  • Transfer and change of investigating officers during investigations.  
  • Investigating agencies being ill equipped.  
  • Non-accountability of I.Os. in the event of loosing the case. 
  • Extraneous factors.  

What are the Case Laws Highlighting the Need for SCIST? 

• Abhishek S/o Dinesh Dey v. State of M.P. (2022) 
  • The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that to the utter disbelief and shock of the Court the samples collected have not been received by the Forensic Science Laboratory. 
  • Also, the Investigating Officer has not taken care to get the DNA report prepared at the earliest. 
  • The Court held that that such lapses are still being committed by the prosecution agencies despite serious observations made by this Court continuously in one or the other. 
• Habu @ Sunil v. State of M.P. (2012) 
  • In this case again there was a failure on the part of the Investigating Officer and the Forensic experts. 
  • As a result of the above the benefit of doubt was given to the accused.