False Implication of an Innocent Man Cannot Be Overlooked: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Denial of Sanction for SIT Members' Prosecution

"Shielding Officers from Prosecution Undermines Justice": P&H High Court Directs Fresh Decision on CBI's Request to Prosecute SIT for Fabricating Evidence. Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the Haryana Government’s refusal to grant sanction for prosecuting Special Investigation Team (SIT) members accused of fabricating evidence to falsely implicate a school bus conductor in the Ryan International School murder case. The court held that the denial of sanction was arbitrary, lacked reasoning, and failed to consider key evidence presented by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Delivering the judgment on January 24, 2025, Justice Kuldeep Tiwari emphasized that government authorities cannot shield officers who deliberately frame an innocent person by mechanically refusing sanction for prosecution.

"The false implication of an innocent person is not a mere mistake in investigation—it is a direct assault on the administration of justice. The sanctioning authority's refusal to act on compelling evidence of deliberate fabrication is unsustainable in law and requires fresh consideration," the court observed.

The ruling directs the sanctioning authority to reconsider its decision within one month, ensuring that the officers accused of manipulating evidence to frame an innocent man do not escape legal scrutiny.

CBI Investigation Unmasks Fabrication of Evidence by SIT in Ryan International School Case
The case dates back to September 8, 2017, when a seven-year-old boy was found murdered in the washroom of Ryan International School, Gurugram. The Haryana Police's SIT promptly arrested Ashok Kumar, a school bus conductor, and accused him of the crime, alleging that he had attempted sexual assault before killing the child.

However, when the investigation was handed over to the CBI amid public outrage, the agency unearthed a shocking conspiracy:

•    Ashok Kumar had been falsely implicated by SIT members who fabricated evidence, coerced witnesses, and manipulated documents to frame him.

•    The real perpetrator was a juvenile student of the same school, who was later arrested and charged by the CBI.

•    SIT officers deliberately tampered with evidence and extracted a false confession from Ashok Kumar under duress.

Following these revelations, the CBI sought sanction from the Haryana Government under Section 197 Cr.P.C. to prosecute the SIT officers for wrongfully implicating an innocent person, but the state government refused to grant permission, prompting the CBI and the victim's father, Barun Chandra Thakur, to move the High Court.

High Court: "Refusal to Grant Sanction Is Subject to Judicial Review"

The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that the state government’s refusal to grant sanction for prosecution cannot escape judicial scrutiny.

"An order refusing sanction must be based on proper reasoning and a thorough evaluation of the evidence. The impugned orders in the present case suffer from non-application of mind and fail to take into account the overwhelming evidence presented by the CBI," the court held.

The judgment relied on State of Punjab v. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti (2009) 17 SCC 92, which established that sanction orders are subject to judicial review, and courts can intervene when authorities refuse sanction arbitrarily or without considering material evidence.

"The duty of the sanctioning authority is not to act as a mere rubber stamp but to ensure that no public servant who engages in serious misconduct is unjustly protected from prosecution," the court noted.

CBI Had Full Jurisdiction to Investigate the SIT’s Misconduct

The Haryana Government contended that the CBI exceeded its jurisdiction by investigating the SIT's actions, arguing that its mandate was limited to the murder investigation. The High Court firmly rejected this argument, holding that CBI was well within its jurisdiction to investigate both the murder and the wrongful implication of an innocent man.

The court pointed to the State and Central Government notifications issued under Sections 5 & 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, which had expressly authorized the CBI to investigate not only the murder but all offences connected to it.

"The wrongful implication of Ashok Kumar was not an independent incident—it was intrinsically linked to the murder investigation. The SIT’s actions were part of the same transaction, and the CBI had every right to probe the fabrication of evidence," the court observed.

High Court Orders Joint Trial of SIT Members and Main Accused

A crucial aspect of the judgment was the court’s ruling that the SIT members should be tried alongside the main accused under Section 223(d) Cr.P.C.. The provision allows for a joint trial when multiple accused have committed offences in the course of the same transaction.

"A separate trial for the SIT members would risk inconsistent findings and prejudice the prosecution. Since the evidence against the officers is deeply intertwined with the murder investigation, they must be tried together," the court ruled.

Citing Essar Teleholdings Ltd. v. CBI (2015) 10 SCC 562, the court reaffirmed that separating trials in cases where the evidence is interconnected could undermine the integrity of the judicial process.

Denial of Sanction Was Based on "Irrelevant and Extraneous Considerations"
The High Court strongly criticized the reasons cited by the Haryana Government for declining sanction. The sanctioning authority had claimed that:

•    There was no medical evidence proving that Ashok Kumar was tortured into confessing.

•    The false documents created by the SIT were "minor inaccuracies" and did not justify criminal prosecution.

•    The officers acted in good faith and their actions were errors in judgment rather than deliberate misconduct.

Rejecting these justifications, the High Court held: "There is a stark difference between a minor inaccuracy and the deliberate creation of false evidence. The SIT’s conduct was not an honest mistake—it was a calculated effort to mislead the investigation and frame an innocent man."

The court also observed that multiple witness statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. provided irrefutable evidence that SIT officers had coerced individuals into giving false testimony.

"The refusal to grant sanction in this case is a blatant attempt to shield officers who abused their power. Such actions strike at the very foundation of the rule of law," the judgment stated.

Concluding its judgment, the High Court quashed the Haryana Government’s refusal to grant sanction and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration. The sanctioning authority was directed to take into account all material evidence presented by the CBI and pass a reasoned order within one month.

"The State cannot arbitrarily deny sanction when there is overwhelming evidence of misconduct. The matter must be reconsidered in accordance with law and free from extraneous considerations," the court directed.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgment sends a strong message that government officials cannot manipulate investigations with impunity. By ensuring that officers who frame innocent people are held accountable, the ruling strengthens public confidence in the criminal justice system.

In reaffirming that denial of sanction cannot be used as a tool to shield misconduct, the judgment upholds the fundamental principle that no one is above the law.
 

Date of Decision: 24 January 2025