Madras High Court: Inaction Leading to Undetected Crimes Violates Article 21; State Directed to Pay Compensation

The Madras High Court recently observed that when a crime remains undetected due to the inaction of the investigating agency, it violates the victim’s right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court added that the State, as the guardian of fundamental rights, must step in and provide monetary relief to the victims in such cases.

It stated that when a crime remains “undetected” due to lapses or inaction of the investigating machinery, and the victim is left without recovery or closure for years, it constitutes a violation of Article 21, and the Court, as guardian of fundamental rights, must step in to provide limited monetary relief as a measure of public law compensation.

Court Recognises Failure of the System

Justice B. Pugalendhi held that such compensation to the victims is to recognise the failure of the system as a whole and to impose corrective responsibility upon the State. The Court added that such compensation serves as a reminder that justice delayed or denied at the stage of investigation is a grave violation.

It stated that the object of such compensation is not to punish individual officers or to substitute civil damages, but to recognise the failure of the system as a whole and to impose corrective responsibility upon the State. It also serves as a reminder that justice delayed or denied at the investigative stage is as grave a violation as any miscarriage at the trial stage.

Background of the Case

The Court was hearing a batch of cases where directions had been sought to the police to either conduct further investigation, or to transfer the investigation to another agency, or to file a final report within the time frame fixed by the Court. The cases involved theft or loss of property and the police had filed a final report as “Undetected” in all the cases.

The Court noted that the State, as guardian of public safety and custodian of justice, has a solemn duty to ensure that wrongdoers are identified and the victims are not left remediless. The Court added that the State had a responsibility to investigate crime effectively.

Article 21 and Duty of the State

The Court further added that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution included the right to live with dignity, security and protection of one’s property. It observed that when a person reported the commission of an offence, he was exercising his fundamental right to seek protection from the State, and correspondingly, the State had a duty to conduct a fair, competent, and diligent investigation.

In the present cases, the Court perused the CD files and noted that the investigation had not been conducted with the degree of diligence that the law demands. It noted that examination of witnesses, verification of ex-convict registers, use of forensic tools, review of CCTV footage and other essential steps were not carried out.

Committee Recommendations and Court’s Appreciation

The Court also called for a report from the State Machinery. The Assistant Inspector General of Police (High Court Cases Monitoring Cell) informed the Court that a committee headed by the ADGP, State Crime Records Bureau, had made certain recommendations and placed them on record. The committee recommended that before filing “Undetected” reports, all investigative steps must be exhausted and the complainant must be informed. It also recommended continued monitoring of similar cases through weekly Crime and Occurrence (C&O) sheets and effective utilisation of the Register of undetected cases.

As per the recommendations, even after filing an “Undetected” report, the officers must stay vigilant and if, during future investigations, any person confesses to having committed similar offences, the officer should immediately inform the same to the Court for further investigation. The Court appreciated these suggestions and remarked that they instil confidence in the system that no victim would be left without the pursuit of justice.

Compensation Ordered for Victims

Noting that victims in the present case were left without remedy, the Court observed that they needed to be compensated. The Court thus directed the Home Department to pay monetary compensation equivalent to 30% of the value of the property stolen reported in each of the cases. It further clarified that this payment would be recoverable from the petitioners if the stolen property was subsequently recovered.

Directions to Police and Need for Systemic Reforms

The Court also directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to implement the recommendations made by the committee headed by the ADGP. It further directed the DGP to issue circulars to officers reiterating that filing an “Undetected” report did not terminate the investigation and that cases must be periodically reviewed. The DGP (Training) was directed to design a refresher course for investigating officers on evidence preservation, forensic procedures and victim communication.

The Court additionally suggested that the State could set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising experts in each District to investigate cases classified as “undetected” for more than five years. It directed that the team must be provided with the necessary infrastructure, more powers and more pay, and that upon identification of the accused, the State could reward the officers to encourage them further.

Case Title: Vallikannu v. The District Superintendent of Police