Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Gudalure M.J Cherian And Others v. Union Of India And Others

Supreme Court Of India

Dec 9, 1991

Judgment

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

The petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by three prominent Christians in the aftermath of a violent incident that occurred at St. Mary’s Convent School, Gajraula (Uttar Pradesh) during the night of 12–13 July 1990. Three intruders allegedly raped two nuns, assaulted several others, and stole approximately Rs 1.11 lakhs. An FIR was lodged at 6:20 a.m. on 13 July 1990 by Sister Floreena, the school’s principal. The local police arrested four individuals—Sampat Lal, Iqbal, Jamil and Babu—between 24 July and 2 August 1990, filed a charge-sheet on 10 August 1990, and listed the case for framing of charges before the IX Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad. The petitioners approached the Supreme Court alleging an unfair investigation and potential miscarriage of justice.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the investigation into the offences committed on 12–13 July 1990 should be transferred from the Uttar Pradesh Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Whether the pending sessions trial should be transferred from the IX Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad to a court in Delhi.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

Contended that the police investigation was neither fair nor impartial, creating apprehension that the real culprits would escape punishment.
Asserted that the four arrested persons were not the actual perpetrators; the victims allegedly declined to identify them and disowned the watches recovered by police.
Sought transfer of investigation to the CBI and relocation of the trial to Delhi to ensure justice and public confidence.

Respondents' Arguments (State of Uttar Pradesh and Police Officials)

Stated that investigation was complete: four accused had been arrested, stolen wristwatches recovered, and a charge-sheet filed on 10 August 1990.
Noted that seven opportunities were given to the nuns for a test identification parade but they failed to identify the accused or the recovered property.
Emphasised that the matter was ready for trial before the competent court at Moradabad.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court acknowledged its general reluctance to reopen investigations once a charge-sheet has been filed, especially by substituting a specialised agency such as the CBI. However, it recognised that in exceptional circumstances—where justice and public confidence are at stake—CBI intervention may be warranted.

Key factors influencing the Court’s decision were:

The victims’ consistent refusal to identify the arrested individuals in the Magistrate-supervised identification parade, raising doubts about the accuracy of the police investigation.
Allegations from the petitioners that the police were pressuring the nuns to accept the four arrested persons as the offenders, despite their own belief that only three attackers had been involved.
The seriousness of the offences—rape and violent robbery within a religious institution—coupled with the broader public interest dimension highlighted by the petitioners.

Balancing these concerns against the established procedural stage of the case, the Court concluded that a further investigation by the CBI, rather than a complete retrial or immediate transfer of the sessions case, would best serve the interests of justice.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The Supreme Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over and complete a further investigation within three months, with full cooperation from the Uttar Pradesh authorities. The prayer to transfer the trial to Delhi was denied. Proceedings before the IX Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad were stayed until 16 March 1992. The writ petition was DISPOSED OF.

Implications: The immediate effect is that the CBI must re-examine the case, potentially identifying the actual perpetrators and correcting investigative deficiencies. The stay ensures that the Moradabad trial will not proceed until the CBI reports, safeguarding the integrity of subsequent judicial proceedings. The decision is case-specific and does not establish a new legal precedent but underscores the Court’s willingness to invoke CBI powers to bolster public confidence in exceptional circumstances.

Show all summary ...

Kuldip Singh, J.— This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, in public interest, has been filed by three prominent Christians regarding the alleged rape of two nuns at Gajraula in Uttar Pradesh on July 13, 1990 by criminals who broke into the residential quarters of St. Mary's Convent School and assaulted several other nuns before decamping with about Rs 1.10 lakhs in cash.

2. This Court issued notice on November 26, 1990. Counter-affidavits have been filed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad, Shri Subhash Kajla, SHO, Gajraula police station at the relevant time, and Dr Meera Singh who medically examined the nuns.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has pressed before us only two of the many reliefs asked for in the writ petition. It is contended that the investigation of the case be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the case be transferred from the file of Sessions Judge, Moradabad to Sessions Judge, Delhi.

4. On July 13, 1990 at 6.20 a.m sister Floreena, principal of St. Mary's School lodged first information report at police station Gajraula wherein she stated that she was living in the school campus along with her staff. On the night between July 12/13, 1990 at about 2 a.m three miscreants entered the premises through the kitchen by breaking open the window. They were not of fair colour and were aged round about 20/24-30 years. All of them were of blackish complexion and were wearing underwears. Third person who appeared to be a gang leader, was wearing underpant and baniyan. The miscreants manhandled the maid servant and snatched her earrings and wristwatch. Thereafter all the miscreants went into the room where staff sisters Tara, Tessey, Anjali, Nisha, Roslit and Mamta were sleeping. The sisters were threatened at the point of knife, iron bar and sticks. The sisters were made to sit in the room and one of the miscreants kept on standing outside the door with some iron implements. The accused who was leader of the gang took sister Tara to another room by force and committed rape on her. On making hue and cry, the sisters were given beating and were threatened to be killed. The miscreant who was standing outside the door took sister Roslit by force to the adjoining room and committed rape on her. All the three miscreants assaulted sister Mamta, Anjali and other sisters. They ransacked the house and looted Rs 1,11,000 by breaking the almirah. The cash was kept for disbursing the salaries of the staff and for payment to the book seller.

5. The Senior Superintendent of Police in his counter-affidavit has stated that accused Iqbal was arrested by the police on July 24, 1990 and by August 2, 1990 four accused persons namely, Sampat Lal, Iqbal, Jamil and Babu had been arrested. He further stated in his affidavit as under:

“Two wristwatches were recovered from Babbu and one wristwatch was recovered from Jameel in the presence of public witnesses namely Deep Chand and Jai Karan. The victims Nun Floreena Tessey, Elsy, Sister Rinci, Nisha, Anjali and maid servant had also arrived at the time of recovery of the stolen property, and recognised the accused persons arrested by the police and the recovered wristwatches.”

6. The charge-sheet against the accused persons, according to the Senior Superintendent, Police has been filed in the Court on August 10, 1990. Regarding the identification of the accused persons before the Magistrate, Senior Superintendent, Police has stated as under:

“About 7 dates from August 27, 1990 to October 1, 1990 were given to the sisters to attend the identification parade of the accused persons in jail to identify them as well as to identify the wristwatches before the Magistrate. They have however failed to identify the accused and the stolen property before Magistrate.”

The second petitioner Paulose Vellakunnath who is a Catholic priest has filed rejoinder affidavit to the counter-affidavit filed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad. In para 7 of the rejoinder it is stated as under:

“The arrest of four persons instead of three criminals who committed the crime is a travesty of justice. For Rev. Sisters stated that the four arrested persons Iqbal, Sammarbal, Jameel and Babu were not the real culprits. Rev. Sisters disowned the watches and disclaimed the watches alleged to have been seized by the police from Iqbal and others. Despite this the police asked Rev. Sisters to accept the four arrested persons as real culprits and get them convicted. The fact is that the real culprits were two men and one adolescent.”

Mr Subhash Kajala the then Station House Officer, Police Station, Gajraula filed his affidavit in this Court on October 11, 1991. He has repeated what the Senior Superintendent, Police has already stated in his affidavit. He has also mentioned that the trial is pending in the court of IX Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad wherein the charge was to be framed against the accused persons on October 24, 1991.

7. It is not necessary for us to go into various facts and circumstances mentioned by the petitioners in the writ petition in support of their apprehensions that the investigation in the case by the police was not fair and the victims are not likely to get justice by the authorities in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Four accused persons have been arrested in connection with the crime and the trial against them is likely to commence. The investigation having been completed by the police and charge-sheet submitted to the court, it is not for this Court, ordinarily, to reopen the investigation specially by entrusting the same to a specialised agency like CBI. We are also conscious that of late the demand for CBI investigation even in police cases is on the increase. Nevertheless — in a given situation, to do justice between the parties and to instil confidence in the public mind — it may become necessary to ask the CBI to investigate a crime. It only shows the efficiency and the independence of the agency.

8. It is obvious from the affidavit of the Senior Superintendent, Police that the nuns who are victims of the tragedy are not coming forward to identify the culprits in an identification parade to be held by the Magistrate. The petitioners on the other hand, have alleged that the four persons who have been set up as accused by the police are not the real culprits and the police is asking the sisters to accept the four arrested persons as culprits. In the face of these averments and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if we direct the CBI to hold further investigation in respect of the offences committed between the night of July 12 and 13, 1990 as per the FIR lodged at Police Station, Gajraula.

9. We are, however, not inclined to accept the prayer of the petitioners to transfer the criminal case from the file of IX Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad.

10. We, therefore, direct the CBI to take up the investigation of the case immediately. We further direct the Senior Superintendent Police, Moradabad and the Station House Officer, Gajraula Police Station to assist the CBI in conducting the investigation. The State of Uttar Pradesh through its Chief Secretary and the Home Secretary is further directed to provide all assistance to the CBI in this respect.

11. The CBI shall complete the investigation within three months from today and submit its report in accordance with law. The proceedings before IX Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad shall remain stayed till March 16, 1992.

12. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of.