Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (September 1) observed that though a faulty investigation cannot, by itself, operate to the benefit of an accused, Courts also cannot presume guilt merely because the Investigating Officer (IO) was recalcitrant or faced allegations of collusion, particularly when the prosecution has failed to produce reliable evidence establishing the accused's guilt.

“A faulty investigation cannot inure to the benefit of the accused, but when there is no reliable evidence, merely because the I.O was recalcitrant or a complaint of collusion was raised against him, the Court cannot presume the guilt of the accused.”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

The prosecution case was that the deceased, along with four others (a son, an employee, a nephew, and a villager), were proceeding to fields when the accused ambushed the party, started indiscriminate firing, and shot the deceased in the back. The victim succumbed to the gunshot injury. A patrolling car with a Magistrate arrived at the spot, and the accused ran away.

The prosecution went to trial with nine witnesses. The accused were convicted under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Aggrieved by the High Court's decision to uphold their conviction, they filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

The High Court, while considering the case, had found a complaint against the I.O. alleging that he had conducted a collusive investigation. However, the Supreme Court noted that the complaint had not been elicited from any of the eyewitnesses and did not explain the deficiencies in the investigation.

The High Court nevertheless relied upon the alleged collusion to explain why independent witnesses were not examined, why blood-stained earth was not sent for chemical examination and why blood-stained clothes were not seized. It then treated the eyewitness testimony as "consistent evidence" and proceeded to convict the accused.

The accused challenged their conviction, citing a faulty investigation by the police; moreover, they contended that no evidence was brought on record to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Opposing the accused's stand, the State, supporting the conviction, contended that a mere faulty investigation cannot benefit the accused, given that the investigating officer became recalcitrant.

Rejecting the State's argument, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran though agreed with the submission that the faulty investigation cannot enure to the benefit of the accused, it also clarified that the courts cannot presume the guilt of the accused when the IO became recalcitrant, rather a conviction can only be recorded when a reliable evidence is brought on record establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

“There is complete lack of evidence in the present case and the testimonies, as we observed, do not inspire confidence.”, the Court said, pointing out that a mere collusion of the IO would not lead to the presumption of guilt. Rather, evidence must be led that inspires confidence that the accused have committed a crime.

The Court said that the High Court erred in giving weightage to the complaint registered against the IO, which the Court termed as a tactic by the prosecution to fill in the lacuna in their case.

“The case is not of a faulty investigation but of no investigation having been carried out. Even the inquest was carried out before the FIS was recorded; making it pre-meditated. The High Court egregiously erred in looking at a complaint against the I.O not produced in the trial, to find the evidence led to be clinching insofar as the culpability of the accused.”, the Court said.

Also, the Court highlighted several serious deficiencies in the investigation, such as cartridges were not recovered from the scene despite the prosecution alleging indiscriminate firing. The bullet which had caused the fatal injury and exited the deceased's body was also not recovered. There was also no attempt to recover the weapons allegedly used by the accused. Although blood-stained earth had been collected from the scene, it was not sent for chemical analysis.

The Court also noted that the inquest had been conducted before the First Information Statement was recorded, describing the sequence as indicating that the inquest was “pre-meditated”.

“We are unable to find the prosecution having established the culpability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”, the Court said.

As a result, the appeal was allowed, paving the way for their release.

Cause Title: Dhrub Singh Etc. v. The State of Bihar

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 883

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv.(NP) Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, AOR Mr. Adarsh Kumar Tiwari, AOR Ms. Jemtiben Ao, Adv. Ms. Arundhuti Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Vartika Maurya, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Raj Mishra, Adv. Mr. Amritesh Anand, Adv. Mr. Vinit Pathak, Adv. Mr. Sagar Khaushik, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Anand Mishra, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Vikkey, AOR Mr. Loveleen Kaithwas, Adv. Mr. Kanchan Kumar Jha, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kumar Saurav, Adv.

Tags: