'No case made out': Supreme Court junks plea for probe in tribal killing, slaps Rs 5 lakh fine

The Supreme Court on Thursday junked a plea by activist Himanshu Kumar demanding a CBI probe against the Chhattisgarh Police and central security forces for an alleged massacre of tribals in two separate places in Dantewada in 2009 and also imposed a fine of Rs 5 lakh on for misusing the judicial process.

It pointed at glaring loopholes within the case put by petitioners seeking an independent probe into the killings.

A bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and J.B. Pardiwala said: "In the view of the matter, we've reached to the conclusion that no case, definitely worth the name, has been made out by the writ petitioners for any longer investigation much less through an office to be appointed by this court."

It imposed a fine of Rs 5 lakh on Kumar and directed that it should be deposited within 4 weeks with the Supreme Court legal services committee, failing which recovery steps are taken against him. Kumar had accused security forces of extra-judicial killings and demanded compensation for families of these killed.

A plea was filed by Kumar and 12 others, who were the members of the family of the deceased tribals, seeking an independent probe into the killings.

The bench noted that the prime concern and therefore the endeavour of the court of law should be to secure justice on the premise of true facts which should be unearthed through a committed, resolved, and a competent investigating agency.

Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the petitioners, vehemently submitted that the alleged brutal incidents of killing of the tribals should be investigated through the CBI. He said the members of the family of the petitioners were killed in cold-blood by the Chhattisgarh Police, and Special law enforcement officials (SPOs) appointed by the Chhattisgarh government in collusion with the activists of the Salwa Judum (group of vigilantes sponsored by the state government) and also the central paramilitary forces consisting of the CRPF and its CoBRA Battalion, in two separate attacks on Citizenship Day, 2009 and October 1, 2009, respectively.

Gonsalves contended that Chhattisgarh government and also the Chhattisgarh Police haven't done anything to date despite the actual fact that the eye-witnesses have identified the accused persons in a number of the cases. He said not one eye-witness has been called to date for the aim of recording his statement.

The bench said it had been really taken hastily that the senior counsel appearing for the petitioners was absolutely oblivious of the very fact that each one the FIRs were investigated by the investigating agencies concerned and, at the top of the investigation, charge sheets came to be filed in numerous courts of Chhattisgarh for the offences like murder, dacoity, etc.

"What we are attempting to convey is that the statements of the petitioners nos.2 to 13 recorded before the Judicial Officer demolishes the whole case put up by the petitioner no.1, (Kumar) who is running an NGO," it said.

The bench, in its 94-page verdict, added: "We are of the view, having reference to the materials on record, that no case, well worth the name for further investigation or re-investigation, could even be said to own been made out. The filing of the charge sheets at the conclusion of the investigation into the assorted FIRs brought up above would indicate that the alleged massacre was at the tip of the Naxalites (Maoists)."

It noted that from the materials on record that each one those persons who are arraigned as accused and against whom charge sheets are filed are absconding and it's now for the tribunal concerned to require appropriate steps during this regard.

"Unfortunately, neither the senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners nor any of the writ petitioners, more particularly, the writ petitioner no.1, the protagonist behind the filing of the current writ petition, running an NGO, has any idea about the charge sheets and therefore the materials collected within the course of the investigation."

As the petitioner's counsel also raised a difficulty that specific questions weren't put to the petitioners, who were members of the family of the deceased, the bench said it cannot accept such submission after a period of virtually 12 years, because the statements were recorded by the judicial officer in 2010.

"Not once within the last 12 years has any grievance been made either orally or in writing before this court as regards the mode and manner of recording of the statements. it's for the primary time in 12 years that such a grievance has been made," it said.

In an interim application, lawman Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, urged the court to initiate appropriate proceedings against the writ petitioners for the offence of perjury punishable under Section 193 of the IPC. The Centre also sought a nod for an investigation by a central agency against entities trying to use the constitutional courts to shield Maoists.

The top court permitted a look against individuals and organisations allegedly involved in securing legal protection to the left-wing extremists through judicial processes, and said it leaves it to Chhattisgarh to require apt steps in accordance with law in reference to assertions within the application by the Centre.

"Thus, we leave it to the State of Chhattisgarh/CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) to require appropriate steps in accordance with law as discussed above in respect to the assertions made within the interim application. We clarify that it shall not be limited only to the offence under Section 211 of the IPC. A case of criminal conspiracy or the other offence under the IPC may additionally surface," said the highest court.

Advocate Sumeer Sodhi represented the Chhattisgarh government within the top court.

The government had opposed the plea within the top court saying all the averments made within the memorandum of the writ petition are ex facie false and fabricated, and an endeavor has been made to mislead the court.