New Delhi [India], September 11 : The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Maharashtra government to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising senior Hindu and Muslim police officers to investigate the alleged assault of a 17-year-old boy during the communal violence in Akola on May 13, 2023, that killed one person and left eight others, including two police officers, injured.
The boy, Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif, who was allegedly attacked during the incident, also claimed to have witnessed the murder of one Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad, an auto-rickshaw driver, who, according to him, was fatally assaulted by four men under the mistaken belief that he was a Muslim.
While ordering a SIT probe, *a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma observed that if the murder was really communally motivated, the same had to be ascertained after a thorough investigation.
"If, in fact, the deceased was really murdered under the impression that he belonged to the 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 Court noted in its judgment.
The top court also criticised Akola police for their failure to register a first information report (FIR) regarding the assault on Sharif, despite the knowledge that a cognizable offence had taken place.
"Therefore, the inaction of the officer-in-charge of the Old City Police Station, Akola, despite being made aware of Medico-Legal Case No. 5580, 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 manifests total dereliction of duty on his part, be it deliberate or due to sheer carelessness", the Court observed.
The Court noted that the medical report from the hospital confirms that the boy was assaulted and was brought to the hospital with a head injury.
"At the very least, the assault upon him would have constituted an offence under Sections 324 or 325 or 326 of the IPC, which are all cognizable, and required decisive and prompt action on the part of the police as soon as they came to know about it", the Court stated.
Further, the Court found it even more distressing that no action was taken despite the boy making a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police (SP) Akola, through his father.
"There is no denial either in the affidavit filed before this Court or in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court that the complaint dated 01.06.2023 was not received by Sandip Ghuge, Superintendent of Police, Akola, respondent No. 3, before the High Court and before us. There is no explanation forthcoming as to whether he even undertook an inquiry to satisfy himself about the truth or otherwise of the information received, as mandated by the provision", it noted.
The Court noted that once information relating to the 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. "In effect, if the information received disclosed commission of a cognizable offence, it is mandatory to register an FIR", it added.
The Court was displeased with the overall inaction of the police in the case and observed that the police's conduct did not live up to the expectation reposed in them as upholders of the law to take prompt and appropriate action.
It further observed that police officers are required to leave their personal predilections and biases, be they religious, racial, casteist or otherwise, aside while discharging their duties.
"They must be true to the call of duty attached to their office and their uniform with absolute and total integrity", the Court said.
The appellant boy had moved the top court challenging the decision of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur bench) that dismissed his plea seeking an FIR in connection with the alleged assault on him. The High Court had reasoned that the plea was tainted with some ulterior motive, making it an unfit case for exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
However, the top court found merit in the appellants' case and found the High Court's decision to be incorrect. Thus, it ordered an SIT probe into the matter and directed the Maharashtra government to take disciplinary action against all police officials who failed in discharging their duty.
"Measures shall also be initiated to instruct and sensitise the rank and file in the police department as to what law requires of them in the discharge of their duties", it directed further.
The Court has sought the SIT report to be placed before it in three months. The appellant Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif was represented by Senior Advocate Mahadeo Thipsay, Advocates Fauzia Shakil, Tasmiya Taleha, Shoeb M. Inamdar and M Huzaifa.