HANSURA BAI v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Discusses principles of fair investigation, impartiality, and the application of 'nemo judex in causa sua'.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 711
Decision Date: 15-05-2025
List of Laws
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Constitution of India, 1949; General Principles of Law
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: The judgment refers to Sections 380 and 457 IPC, stating that an FIR was lodged against unknown persons for theft and house trespass by night punishable under these sections. The FIR was lodged based on a complaint that substantial articles of silver and gold jewellery and cash were stolen.
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: The judgment mentions Section 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, under which a FIR was lodged against the whole family of Gangaram Pardhi. It also refers to Sections 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), and 3(5) (joint criminal liability) of the BNS, stating that these sections were invoked against the Town Inspector of Myana Police Station. Further, Section 120 (voluntarily causing hurt to extort a confession) of the BNS was added to the case based on witness statements.
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: The judgment mentions Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which was added to the case based on the statements of the witnesses examined during the investigation.
- Constitution of India, 1949: The judgment refers to Article 136 of the Constitution of India, stating that the court considered whether to grant relief under this article.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment invokes the Latin maxim ‘nemo judex in causa sua', meaning ‘no one should be a judge in his own cause'. The court applies this principle to the case, noting that the allegation of custodial death is against the local police, raising concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the investigation conducted by the same police force. The judgment emphasizes the importance of an independent investigating agency when the allegations are against the local police, citing the decisions in *Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat*, *Mohd. Anis v. Union of India*, and *R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P.* to support this principle. The court emphasizes that the credibility of the investigation will be doubted if the investigating agency is allegedly privy to the dispute.
🔒 For Members Only