2023 Akola Riot Killing: SC Orders Mixed-Community SIT, Says Police ‘Failed Their Duty’

Taking a serious view of "total dereliction of duty on part of police, be it deliberate or due to sheer carelessness", the bench observed, "When members of the police force don their uniforms, they are required to shed their personal predilections and biases, be they religious, racial, casteist or otherwise. They must be true to the call of duty attached to their office and their uniform with absolute and total integrity. Unfortunately, in the case on hand, this did not happen".

The appellant, then aged 17 years, alleged that he was an eyewitness to the murderous assault on the person in the auto rickshaw, whose name was revealed to him later as Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad. It was claimed the deceased was plying the auto rickshaw of a Muslim, which bore a sticker with the name ‘Garib Nawaz’. The appellant claimed that under the mistaken identity or belief that the deceased was a Muslim, the four unknown assailants had caused his death and, thereafter, attacked him.

The appellant stated that these facts were affirmed by none other than a leader of the Maharashtra Congress as well as an MLC of the Nationalist Congress Party, whom he named. He claimed his statement was recorded but the police denied it. Even though a written complaint was filed on June 1, 2023, the police did not take any action. He also claimed after a few days, during the festival of Shravan Somwar, he had occasion to go by Raj Rajeshwar Setu Bridge and happened to see a flex board of a politician of Shiv Sena party. Therein, he found photographs of one of the four assailants.

He also found upon an FIR lodged by the deceased’s relative against members of the Muslim community, the police filed the charge sheet but there was no mention whatsoever of the appellant, who was an eyewitness to the murder.

Allowing the appeal against the Bombay High Court's order which declined to issue any direction on his writ petition, the court held that a 17-year-old boy asserted that he was an eyewitness to the murder of Gaikwad and was himself assaulted by the very same assailants.

"If, in fact, the deceased was really murdered under the impression that he belonged to Muslim community and the assailants were not of that community, that was a fact that had to be ascertained after thorough and proper investigation," the bench observed.

The apex court also directed the Secretary, Home Ministry, to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against all erring police officials, in accordance with law and due procedure, for the patent dereliction of duties, for having failed to lodge FIR into the cognizable offence.

Court also directed taking measures to instruct and sensitize the rank and file in the police department as to what law requires of them in the discharge of their duties. In the case, court noted, be it for whatever reason, the police authorities never followed up on the case involving the appellant, though they had information of the same at 02.15 AM on May 14, 2023 itself, i.e., shortly after the admission of the appellant at Icon Hospital.

"Neither the officers of the Old City Police Station, Akola, nor Sandip Ghuge, Superintendent of Police, Akola, lived up to the expectation that reposed in them as upholders of the law to take prompt and appropriate action," the bench said.

Court also said it was surprising that, in a matter involving the State, represented by the Chief Secretary, and its Home Ministry, wherein a serious issue had been raised before the highest court in the country, no senior official chose to file an affidavit before this court and left it to an Inspector of the local police station to do the needful. More so, as serious allegations were made against a Superintendent of Police, who was impleaded by name.

In the case, court said, neither the Police Inspector nor the high court was correct in their assumption and understanding that it was for the appellant or his relatives to pursue the police to take necessary steps in that regard and that the police were not required to take any steps, despite their knowledge of the commission of a cognizable offence. In this regard, reference may be made to Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was holding the field at that time, court said. 

"Once information relating to commission of a cognizable offence is given to the officer-in-charge of a police station, the investigative machinery is required to be set in motion. If the information received revealed commission of a cognizable offence, it is mandatory to record the substance of the information in a book to be kept by the officer in the prescribed form. In effect, if the information received disclosed commission of a cognizable offence, it is mandatory to register an FIR," the bench said, citing Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. and others (2014).

Court found the inaction of the officer-in-charge of the Old City Police Station, Akola, despite being made aware of Medico-Legal Case involving the appellant, and his admission in the hospital, and the failure in following through by recording his statement at the earliest opportunity and registering an FIR in that regard, clearly manifested total dereliction of duty on his part, be it deliberate or due to sheer carelessness.

Case Title: Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif Vs The State of Maharashtra and others

Bench: Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma