MUMBAI: The Supreme Court on Friday partly allowed an appeal and directed “further Investigation” by Maharashtra police into a 2020 complaint by a Thane man, against the then cabinet minister Jitendra Awhad and others, who alleged that he was abducted by police guards and beaten “mercilessly’’ by over 15 men in presence of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader at his bungalow.
“The victim has a fundamental right of fair investigation and fair trial. Therefore, mere filing of the chargesheet and framing of the charges cannot be an impediment in ordering further investigation / re-investigation / de novo investigation, if the facts so warrant,’’ said the apex court bench of Justices M R Shah and C T Ravikumar on Friday.
The SC said “allegations in the FIR were very serious including the misuse of powers by the sitting Cabinet Minister and of abducting, kidnapping and beating the complainant'' and noted that Awhad was made an accused. "belatedly'' after the Bombay high court intervened.
The further probe to be completed within three months, said the SC.
Thane resident Anant Karmuse had appealed against an April 2022 HC order dismissing his plea for transfer of case to CBI or to any other agency for “ further investigation or re-investigation’’ of the first information report (FIR) registered at Thane.
The SC confirmed the refusal by Bombay high court to transfer investigation to CBI but said the case required “further /re-investigation” by State police observing that “the allegations in the FIR, right from very beginning, were against the accused No 13 who at the relevant time was the sitting Cabinet Minister occupying the high position.’’
"Even the investigation was also conducted in a perfunctory manner. The real investigation started only after the intervention of the Bombay High Court," the police “were compelled to investigate’’ and “belatedly (Awhad) was chargesheeted in March, 2022, the SC noted.
Senior counsel Mahesh Jethmalani and Sidharth Dave for Karmuse who said re-investigation can still be ordered even after chargesheet is filed. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for Maharashtra said “a further investigation…is required.’’
Senior counsel A M Singhvi and Shekhar Naphade for two co-accused including Hemant Wani an alleged accused who had file a FIR against Karmuse too for offence of obscenity and Information Technology opposed the appeal submitting that since charge is also framed in the case against them by the trial court it can be said that the trial has begun and the case cannot be transferred to CBI. Singhvi and Naphade also argued that the alleged ‘victim’ raised a grievance of “grievous injuries’’ for the first time and with probe complete, there can be no further probe now.
The SC judgement says, "During the period 06.04.2020 to 29.05.2020, the State police recorded the statement of 23 witnesses including the accused No. 13. The statement of the main accused was taken as a witness. The real investigation started thereafter. The first chargesheet came to be filed against accused Nos. 1 to 10 on 07.12.2020. The accused No. 13 – the then sitting Minister against whom the serious allegations were made, even named in the FIR, was not chargesheeted. Even the relevant material evidences were collected in the form of CDR, mobile phones etc. after the High Court intervened and passed various interim orders. The supplementary chargesheet came to be filed against accused Nos. 11 and 12 on 28.07.2021. The accused No. 13 was not even chargesheeted in the supplementary chargesheet. The charges came to be framed against accused Nos. 1 to 12 on 28.08.2021. Only thereafter the supplementary chargesheet came to be filed against the accused No. 13 on 05.03.2022.’’ It said thus it could be seen that “that there was no proper investigation by the State investigating agency at the relevant time and even the material evidences were also not collected.’’
he HC last April, after hearing Karmuse’s lawyer Anirudha Ganu directed preservation of CCTV footage and other evidence in safe court custody.
The SC said, "facts in a nutshell are” that Karmuse who filed the appeal is “a Civil Engineer, working as a consultant, shared on his Facebook account on 05.04.2020, a viral picture of one Jitendra Awhad, the then sitting Cabinet Minister of the State of Maharashtra (who is subsequently arrayed as accused No. 13 after the High Court intervened), criticizing his act of ridiculing the Prime Minister of India. According to the appellant, at around 11.50 pm at night on 05.04.2020, four Policemen, two dressed in Civilian Dress and other two in uniform came to his residence and forcibly took him to the Bungalow of the said Minister. According to the appellant, thereafter, the Minister instructed his men to beat him and make him apologise…’’. There is one FIR registered against Karmuse under the Information Technology Act and section 292 Indian Penal Code (obscenity) filed by one of the person he named as accused, Hitesh Wani “close ally of the Minister with sole purpose to threaten him if in case he decides to file a complaint about the said incident.’’
The SC judgment however said, “what aspects the further investigation shall be carried out is left to the wisdom of the State investigating agency.’’
Opposing the appeal two co-accused close to Awhad said "just because the political dispensation in the State has changed, state filed an affidavit'' and without adequate evidence is seeking further probe.
