Read the Judgement copy : SRI SAYAN MONDAL -VS- THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Case Name: SRI SAYAN MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Case Number: CRR 2992 OF 2023
Date: Twenty Fifth September Two Thousand Twenty-Five
Court: The High Court of Kolkata, West Bengal
Quorum: Honorable Justice Uday Kumar
FACTS
On 21.09.2022, The petitioner a member of the oppressed community, filed a written complaint alleging that the accused persons Rabiul Islam Bulbul and Sayan Dutta, belonging to the general caste posted foul, casteist remarks targeting his caste identity, religion, God, and family on Facebook. This resulted in Behala Police Station Case No. 274 dated 17.10.2022 under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, later renumbered as Special Case No. 89 of 2022. The Investigating Officer recorded statements prepared a formal seizure list for the digital screenshots and links A police “Nil/No clue” Final Report True (FRT) was filed on 20.01.2023 after they could not find any user details on Facebook. On 14.02.2023, the petitioner sent a na-raji (protest) petition. On 27.06.2023, the Special Court at Alipore dismissed the protest petition and accepted the FRT and it is stated that charge sheets had been filed in the three other special cases, filed by the same complainant (Special Case Nos 50/2021, 31/2022, and 9/2022). The petitioner challenged the Special Court’s order before the Calcutta High Court under Section 482 read with Sections 395/397 Cr.P.C.
LEGAL ISSUE
- Whether the Special Court’s acceptance of a “Nil/No clue” closure report and rejection of a protest petition resting on the circumstance that charge sheets were filed in other unrelated cases by the same complainant is legally sustainable?
- Whether an investigation into digital offences under the SC/ST Act can be closed as “no clue” without exhausting specialized cyber-forensic channels?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989:
- a) Section 3(1)(r): Intentionally insulting or humiliating a member of an SC/ST community in any place within public view.
- b) Section 3(1)(s): Abusing an SC/ST member by caste name in any place within public view.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.):
- a) Section 161: Power to Examine the witnesses by Police.
- b) Section 164: Power to recording of confession and statement by magistrate. c) Section 173(8): Power of police to conduct further investigation even after filing report and charge sheet.
- d) Section 395: Reference to High Court.
- e) Section 397: Calling for records to exercise the power of revision
ARGUMENTS:
PETITIONER ARGUMENTS
The petitioner argued that the Trial Court committed a error of law by using his prior complaints as a negative disqualifying filter against a distinct, prima facie offense under Section 3(1)(r)/(s) of the SC/ST Act substantiated by his Section 164 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to section 183 of the BNSS, 2023) The statement and digital evidence they brought back made it clear there were no reasons to terminate or stop the case or investigation without resorting to the specialised supervisory cyber-forensic channels, a local cyber dead-end, at the level of the case.
RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS
The State defended the closure order by asserting that the investigation was duly conducted and a true report rightly submitted upon failing to trace user details through cyber channels, contending under K. Vadivel v. V. Shanthi & Ors. that powers under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. (Corresponding Section 198 of the BNSS)
ANALYSIS
Reaffirming Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Anr. [(1985) 2 SCC 537], the High Court held that upon the submission of a final report, a Special Judge is duty-bound to evaluate a protest petition independently on its merits to ascertain whether cognizable material was overlooked or if the police investigation was perfunctory. Judging a complaint’s merit based on a litigant’s prior or parallel case, the Court observed, “shocks judicial conscience.” Each individual criminal occurrence should be assessed on its own merits and evidentiary matrix and not based on whether a prior case had presumed lack of merit. The Court, importantly, said that the concept of “public view” in Section 3(1)(r)/(s) of the SC/ST Act is not limited to physical space but extends to digital. Accordingly, if a cyber-forensic and IP-log tracking is followed in the specialized way by the State CID and electronic screenshots are seized and confirmed by a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the police cannot file any statement saying ‘no clue’ without following any specific tracking process or protocols, as held in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali alias Deepak & Ors. In K. Vadivel v. V. Shanthi & Ors. [(2013) 5 SCC 762] the Court has held that omission to order supervisory probe resulting in serious miscarriage of justice, which is factually distinguishable.
JUDGEMENT
The High Court invalidated the impugned order dated 27th June 2023 which resulted in the acceptance of the Final Report True (FRT) as well as the dropping of proceedings in Special Case No. 89 of 2022. The High Court remanded the matter to the Special Court, Alipore, and ordered that the Deputy Commissioner of Police (South-West Division / Specialized Cyber Cell of Kolkata Police) be appointed as the supervisory officer for the Behala PS Case No. 274. Moreover, the court ordered the appointment of a cyber-forensic officer to track down digital footprints and profile logs and ordered to submit a supplementary police report within 3 months under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C.
CONCLUSION
A victim’s previous complaints were held to be non-preventive for a criminal transaction, by the Calcutta High Court. In addition, the judgment has extended the definition of “public view” in the SC/ST Act to social media platforms, further consolidating the law and the mandate of law enforcement to use cutting edge cyber-forensic tools to help in the investigation of online atrocity cases. The application for revision (CRR 2992/2023) was granted.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: BHARAT V
