Supreme Court: While considering this matter whereby the appellant was aggrieved at the dismissal of his complaint regarding police inaction apropos the attack and assault on him during communal riots in Akola City, Maharashtra on 13-05-2023 by Bombay High Court after expressing suspicions on the appellant’s bonafides; the Division Bench of Sanjay Kumar* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., directed the Secretary, Home Ministry, Government of Maharashtra, to constitute a special investigation team (SIT), comprising senior police officers of both Hindu and Muslim communities, to undertake an investigation into all the allegations made by the appellant, by registering an FIR in connection with the assault upon him, and take appropriate action thereon as warranted. The Court further directed to initiate 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.
Taking note of the approach taken by the Police in the present case, the Court emphasised that 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.
Background:
On 13-05-2023, communal riots broke out in Akola City, Maharashtra, owing to a social media post. As per the version of events as stated in writ petition filed before the High Court the appellant stated that, while he was returning on that day from Mominpura area in Akola to his residence at Ambika Nagar, he passed over Raj Rajeshwar Setu Bridge in Kholeshwar area and saw 4 unknown persons assaulting one person, who was in an auto rickshaw, with a sword, iron pipe, etc. Two of the four assailants accosted him and said that it was his turn next. The appellant stated that the four assailants then damaged his vehicle and assaulted him with their weapons on his head and neck. The appellant was thereafter taken to the hospital while the victim succumbed to his injuries
The appellant claimed that the District Collector along with police personnel visited him at Icon Hospital and the police recorded his statement. He claimed to have given all details to them, but no action was taken. Appellant also asserted that he was an eyewitness to the murderous assault on the deceased victim in the auto rickshaw, and that the deceased victim was plying the auto rickshaw of a Muslim, which bore a sticker with the name ‘Garib Nawaz’. The appellant stated that under the mistaken identity/belief that the deceased was a Muslim, the four unknown assailants had caused his death and, thereafter, attacked the appellant. The appellant claimed that, after waiting for considerable time and as no offence was registered against the unknown assailants, he along with his father lodged written complaints on 01-06-2023 with the Police Station Officer of the Old City Police Station at Akola. The appellant made further enquiries and discovered that an FIR was filed at the instance of the deceased victim’s relative against members of the Muslim community but there was no mention whatsoever of the appellant, who was an eyewitness to the victims’ murder. Furthermore, no separate FIR was registered in relation to the assault upon the appellant till the date of filing of the writ petition before the High Court.
Before the High Court, the appellant prayed for a direction to the police authorities concerned to register an offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the four unknown assailants, one of whom was now identifiable through the snapshot available with him. He sought a further direction to transfer the investigation in relation thereto to a special investigation team of competent and impartial police officers of integrity to investigate the life-threatening assault upon him and the fatal assault upon the deceased victim.
Via the impugned judgment, the High Court took to task the appellant’s relatives for not trying to lodge a report with the police immediately. As regards the claim of the appellant that he was an eyewitness to the murderous assault on the deceased victim, the High Court observed that the appellant had not explained as to why he did not voluntarily go to the police station to get his statement recorded within reasonable time. The impugned order ended with the observation that it appeared that the writ petition was tainted with some ulterior motive and, therefore, it was not a fit case for exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Court’s Assessment:
“Law requires, nay, ordains that its sentinels be vigilant, prompt and objective in enforcing and securing its mandate. To what extent the guardians of the law, viz., the police, discharge this task without bias and subjectivity is the question that arises in the case on hand”.
Perusing the case and acknowledging its gravity, the Court observed that upon issuance of notice in this matter, Police Inspector, Old City Police Station, Akola, filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the State of Maharashtra. “It is surprising that, in a matter involving the State, represented by the Chief Secretary, and its Home Ministry, wherein a serious issue has 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”.
The Court further took note that General Diary maintained by the Old City Police Station, Akola, reflected that an entry was made therein on 14-05-2023 which stated that the appellant had been admitted in the hospital in an injured condition for medical treatment and that he was not in a position to speak. The Court also noted that the appellant’s statement was 15-05-2023, when the District Collector came there along with police personnel and one of the policemen recorded his statement.
Therefore, once the police station was informed of a medico-legal case involving the appellant who was admitted in the hospital in connection therewith, in an injured condition, and as the police would have been aware of the riots that were taking place, a duty was cast upon the police to register the cognizable offence that had been brought to their notice.
The Court explained that neither the Police Inspector nor the High Court were 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. The Court pointed out that as per Section 154 of the CrPC, 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.
Therefore, 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 appellant’s statement at the earliest opportunity and not registering an FIR in that regard, clearly showed total dereliction of duty on his part, be it deliberate or due to sheer carelessness. The Court said that the assault upon the appellant 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 grimly pointed out that that the appellant made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Akola on 1-6-2023 through his father, as the appellant was 17 years old at the time of the incident, but to no avail. Section 154 requires the said Superintendent of Police to satisfy himself as to whether the information received disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence and to either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer subordinate to him. However, in the present case, there was no explanation forthcoming as to whether the Superintendent even undertook an enquiry to satisfy himself about the truth or otherwise of the information received, as mandated by the provision. “This conduct on the part of superior police officer of no less a rank than a Superintendent of Police, is indeed a cause for great concern”.
The Court further noted that the affidavits filed by the police inspector of the Old City Police Station, Akola, tried to attribute motives to the appellant and the same was willingly accepted and acted upon by the High Court. Reproaching this conduct, the Court said that it was for the police to investigate the truth or otherwise of the specific allegations made by the appellant, a 17-year-old boy, who asserted that he was an eyewitness to the murder of the deceased victim. “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 Court emphasised that Police forces must operate above their personal predilections and biases and with complete integrity. “Unfortunately, in the case on hand, this did not happen” as for whatever reason, the police authorities never followed up on the medico-legal case involving the appellant. Neither the officers of the Old City Police Station, Akola, nor Superintendent of Police, Akola, lived up to the expectation that reposed in them as upholders of the law to take prompt and appropriate action.
Therefore, the Court directed the constitution of a SIT and further directed the Secretary, Home Ministry, Government of Maharashtra, to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against all erring police officials, in accordance with law and due procedure, for the patent dereliction of duties in the present case.
It was directed that the SIT report must be placed before the Court within three months from date of the judgment.
[Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif v. State of Maharashtra, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8494 of 2025, decided on 11-9-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Sanjay Kumar
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Appellant(s): Mr. Abhay Mahadeo Thipsay, Sr. Adv. Ms. Fauzia Shakil, AOR Ms. Tasmiya Taleha, Adv. Mr. M.huzaifa, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
