Madhya Pradesh High Court orders DGP to setup 'Serious Crimes Investigation Supervision Team' in every district

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently directed the State Director General of Police (DGP) to ensure that investigation in serious crimes in each district is supervised by a team headed by an experienced officer of Indian Police Service (IPS) [Sunit @ Sumit Singh Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh]..Justice Subodh Abhyankar passed the order after noting that despite time and again pointing to serious lapses of Investigating officers, there was no discernible progress in the methods and approach of investigation..The Court said these lapses were allowing the accused persons to go scot-free. When a criminal trial is doomed right from the beginning only because of slipshod investigation, it is nothing but a sheer misuse of the process of the court at the cost of the public exchequer, the judge said.“Thus, in its effort to ensure that this practice of careless and sloppy investigation must stop somewhere, and the investigation is not left to the whims of an investigating officer, it is directed to the Director General of the Police, M.P., Bhopal, to ensure that in each district of the State, each and every investigation in serious crimes be supervised by a team comprising of two member, which shall be headed by a senior level police officer, not below the rank of an experienced IPS officer, and other officer of the Police department, not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police, who may be chosen by the said IPS officer,” the Court ordered..The Court named the supervising officers as the ‘Serious Crimes Investigation Supervising Team’ and said the same shall supervise the investigation and provide its inputs to the investigating officer to ensure that there are no lapses in the probe and any 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,” the Court said further..The Court passed the directions while dealing with the bail plea of an accused in a case related to a murder which took place during a robbery in 2020. The Court was told that the accused has been in prison for over three years and eight months and the trial was unlikely to complete soon. On merits, it was argued that the accused was arrested about six months after the incident and initially only a phone was seized but later his pants were seized.As per the prosecution, those were the pants he had worn at the time of incident. The Court was told that the DNA report had been fabricated as it was not possible that the accused would have kept the pants in the same condition for six months. Considering the arguments and the progress of trial, the Court allowed the bail plea..During the earlier hearings, the Court had raised questions over the quality of investigation in the case and asked the State why the fingerprints had not been obtained from the place of the incident since it was also alleged that the accused was present when the robbery had taken place.In response, the Police said that since many persons had entered the house, it was not possible for them to take fingerprints from the spot.However, the Court called the explanation unsatisfactory. It noted that the accused persons had searched for valuables in the house and there must have been their fingerprints. “It is apparent that there are sheer lapses in the investigation, which are the result of unprofessional and callous approach adopted by the investigating officer, and this not an isolated incident, in fact similar is the situation in most of the serious offences, as the persons responsible for the same do not discharge their duties with due diligence, and by the time it is realized, it is too late in a day to take any corrective measures, leaving this or the other courts only to lament the same through its or their judgments,” it remarked..Advocate Abhay Saraswat represented the accused.Advocate Virendra Khadav represented the State..[Read Order]