AWUNGSHI CHIRMAYO AND ANR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI.

CITATION	2024 INSC 249
DATE OF JUDGMENT	22th March 2024
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	AWUNGSHI CHIRMAYO AND ANR
RESPONDENT	GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS
BENCH	JUSTICE JK MAHESHWARI and JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA

INTRODUCTION 

A young woman named Awungshi Chirmayo’s death sparked a legal battle that resonated far beyond the confines of a courtroom. The official narrative, a conclusion of suicide by the Delhi Police, collided head-on with the unwavering belief of Awungshi’s family in foul play. This chasm ignited a fight for justice, exposing vulnerabilities within the justice system and raising critical questions about thoroughness, impartiality, and the pursuit of truth. Inconsistencies at the scene of occurrence gnawed at the family’s hearts. The suicide theory seemed implausible considering Awungshi’s distance from her familiar surroundings in Manipur. This improbable scenario, coupled with the possibility of overlooked details that didn’t fit the narrative, furled their suspicions. 

This battle transcended a single family’s grief. It became a fight for the fundamental principles of a fair and unbiased investigation. Awungshi’s family, armed with their convictions, challenged the very foundation of the Delhi Police’s work. They questioned whether an investigation conducted within the confines of Delhi itself could be truly untainted by potential local influences. Their fight for a transfer of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) reflected their yearning for a more objective probe, one with a wider reach and a reputation for neutrality. The fate of this case would ultimately lie in the hands of the Supreme Court of India, the highest court in the land. 

The Supreme Court’s judgement in the Awungshi Chirmayo case, delivered on March 22nd, 2024, would determine whether the pursuit of truth in this case would be guided by a truly objective investigation, offering solace to a grieving family and upholding the core principles of justice

FACTS OF THE CASE

1.The initial investigation conducted by the Delhi Police concluded that Awungshi’s death was a case of suicide. This conclusion met with vehement opposition from Awungshi’s family. Inconsistencies at the scene of occurrence gnawed at their belief, painting a picture incompatible with the official story.

2.The family pointed towards inconsistencies at the scene, suggesting details that didn’t fit the suicide narrative. They argued that the very notion of suicide seemed highly improbable. Awungshi, far from her familiar surroundings in Manipur, appeared unlikely to take her own life.

3.The core issue of the case hinged on the thoroughness and impartiality of the Delhi Police investigation. The family, through their legal representation, questioned whether a probe conducted within the confines of Delhi could be truly unbiased. Potential for bias or even a cover-up furled their desire for a more objective investigation.

4.The family, armed with strong convictions, aimed a critical spotlight at the Delhi Police investigation. They argued that the investigation Prioritized protecting potential suspects over uncovering the truth. Neglected crucial inconsistencies at the scene that contradicted the suicide narrative. Failed to acknowledge the improbability of suicide given Awungshi’s distance from her hometown.

5.The Delhi Police countered the family’s accusations, insisting that their investigation followed established and fair procedures. They pointed towards a polygraph test administered to suspects, which yielded inconclusive results, attempting to present a seemingly neutral element in their case.

6.The family, questioning the impartiality of the local police, sought a transfer of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI, a central agency with a reputation for being more independent and effective, offered a glimmer of hope for a more thorough and unbiased probe.

7.The fate of this case ultimately rested with the Supreme Court of India, the highest court in the land. Recognizing the concerns raised by the family and the need for a transparent investigation, the Supreme Court would make a crucial decision.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Did inconsistencies at the scene of death cast doubt on the Delhi Police’s conclusion of suicide in Awungshi Chirmayo’s case.
2. Given the distance between Awungshi’s hometown and Delhi, could suicide be a plausible explanation, as presented by the Delhi Police.
3. Did Awungshi Chirmayo’s family have valid concerns regarding the impartiality of the Delhi Police investigation.
4. The Delhi Police conduct a thorough investigation into Awungshi Chirmayo’s death or was there a possibility that crucial evidence was overlooked.
5. Why Awungshi Chirmayo’s family believe a more unbiased probe, potentially by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), was necessary.

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT

1. The family vehemently argued that the Delhi Police investigation was riddled with flaws. They believed the focus shifted away from uncovering the truth to potentially protecting suspects. This could manifest in overlooking crucial evidence, neglecting alternative possibilities, or prematurely settling on the suicide narrative.
2.  A shadow of doubt hung over the impartiality of the local investigation. The family’s concern stemmed from the inherent risk of bias when dealing with a case within the same city where the death occurred. Potential biases could arise from local pressures, connections with suspects, or a desire to avoid negative publicity. 
3. The suicide theory, as presented by the Delhi Police, faced strong opposition from the family. They argued that considering Awungshi’s distance from her hometown and lack of known reasons for self-harm, the scenario was highly improbable. Suicide is a complex issue, and without any concrete evidence pointing towards such a drastic decision, the family demanded a deeper exploration of alternative explanations.
4. The family’s primary objective was to ensure a truly thorough and unbiased investigation into Awungshi’s death. They believed the Delhi Police investigation, with its perceived flaws and potential bias, was incapable of uncovering the truth. A more thorough probe meant a meticulous examination of all evidence, revisiting the scene for inconsistencies, and exploring all possible scenarios, not just suicide. Additionally, an unbiased investigation would guarantee objectivity and a focus solely on uncovering the truth.
5. Based on the aforementioned concerns, the family’s central argument hinged on the need to transfer the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI, a national investigative agency with a reputation for impartiality and wider reach, offered them a glimmer of hope.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

1.  The Delhi Police, as the respondent, likely countered by asserting that their investigation was conducted fairly and adhered to established standard procedures. This would involve following a defined protocol for crime scene investigation, witness interviews, and evidence collection.
2.  They have argued that the polygraph test results on the suspects, while inconclusive, did not necessarily point towards foul play. Polygraph tests, though not foolproof, can be used as a tool during investigations.
3.  In response to the family’s claims about inconsistencies at the scene, the Delhi Police have offered explanations based on their investigation. This could involve presenting forensic evidence or witness statements that corroborated their suicide narrative.
4.  The Delhi Police might have that, despite the distance from her hometown, personal reasons for suicide could still be present and unknown to the family. They might have emphasized the need for a complete investigation before ruling out any possibilities. 
5.  Finally, the Delhi Police have argued that transferring the case to the CBI was unnecessary. They might have highlighted their own experience and resources in handling such investigations, expressing confidence in their ability to reach a fair conclusion.

JUDGEMENT

The case of Awungshi Chirmayo’s death sparked a legal battle that ultimately reached the Supreme Court of India. The Court, after careful consideration of arguments presented by both sides, issued a landmark judgement.

The family’s concerns regarding the Delhi Police investigation resonated with the Court. The inconsistencies at the scene of death, coupled with the improbability of suicide given Awungshi’s distance from her hometown, raised serious doubts about the initial investigation’s thoroughness. Furthermore, the family’s lack of faith in the impartiality of the local investigation was a crucial factor.

Acknowledging the gravity of the situation and the need for complete transparency, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s dismissal of the family’s petition. In a significant decision, the Court ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into the matter. This decision highlighted the Court’s commitment to ensuring a fair and objective investigation, especially when doubts exist about the local police’s impartiality.

The CBI inquiry offered the family a renewed hope for uncovering the truth behind Awungshi’s death. The Court’s judgement served as a powerful reminder that the justice system, at its best, strives to safeguard the rights of victims and their families, even when faced with challenging circumstances.

ANALYSIS

The tragic death of Awungshi Chirmayo in Delhi ignited a legal battle that exposed vulnerabilities within the justice system. The family’s vehement opposition to the Delhi Police’s conclusion of suicide stemmed from inconsistencies at the scene and the improbability of suicide given Awungshi’s distance from her hometown. This cast a shadow of doubt on the investigation’s thoroughness, and the family’s concerns about potential bias within the local police further eroded trust. The case highlighted the importance of meticulous investigation, where all evidence is examined, and alternative possibilities are explored to ensure a complete picture emerges.

A central issue in the case was the question of impartiality. Can local police conduct truly objective investigations in the same city where the crime occurred? The Supreme Court’s landmark decision to transfer the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) resonated with this concern. The CBI, with its national reach and reputation for neutrality, offered a glimmer of hope for an unbiased probe. This decision underscored the crucial role of the judiciary in safeguarding the rights of victims and their families, especially when doubts cloud the local investigation’s objectivity. The CBI inquiry became a beacon of hope for Awungshi’s family, symbolizing the Court’s commitment to upholding the principles of justice and ensuring a thorough investigation untainted by potential bias. The Awungshi Chirmayo case serves as a stark reminder of the complexities involved in achieving justice. It underlines the need for a robust investigative system, free from local influences, to guarantee that the truth ultimately prevails.

CONCLUSION

The tragic death of Awungshi Chirmayo exposed cracks in the justice system. Inconsistencies at the scene, coupled with the improbability of suicide, cast doubt on the Delhi Police investigation. The family’s concerns about impartiality further eroded trust. The Supreme Court’s landmark decision acknowledged these issues by ordering a CBI inquiry. This decision highlighted the importance of a truly objective investigation, particularly when local bias is a concern. The CBI inquiry offered a renewed hope for Awungshi’s family, symbolizing the judiciary’s commitment to justice. The Awungshi Chirmayo case serves as a stark reminder: achieving justice requires a robust investigative system free from local influences, where the pursuit of truth remains paramount.

REFERENCES

1. SCC Online

https://www.scconline.com

2. AWUNGSHI CHIRMAYO VS.GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI CASE JUDGEMENT    https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/31532/31532_2018_10_1501_51726_Judgement_22-Mar-2024.pdf
3.  ADVOCATE KHOJ 

https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=17415

This Article is written by Charchit saxena, student of Jamia hamdard , New Delhi, Intern at Legal Vidhya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.