'Classic Example Of Improper, Lackadaisical Investigation': Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict, Orders Probe Against Investigating Officer

The Patna High Court has acquitted a man convicted of murder, describing the case as a “classic example of improper, lackadaisical, and indifferent investigation” and directing an inquiry against the Investigating Officer for serious lapses in the investigation. The Court observed that the investigation suffered from glaring deficiencies, including failure to establish ownership of seized articles, omission to send the recovered empty cartridge for forensic examination, and withholding of material evidence, thereby creating serious lacunae in the prosecution case.A Division Bench comprising Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Rana Vikram Singh was hearing a criminal appeal challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura, convicting the appellant under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Before examining the merits of the appeal, the Bench observed:“The instant appeal is a classic example of improper, lackadaisical, and indifferent investigation on the part of the Investigating Officer keeping material lacuna in the prosecution case.”According to the prosecution, on July 22, 2014, the informant and his son were returning home on a motorcycle after attending the last rites of a relative when they were intercepted by several accused persons travelling on motorcycles. It was alleged that while some of the accused restrained the informant, the appellant shot his son in the chest at the instruction of another accused. The victim later succumbed to the gunshot injury. Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the appellant and another accused under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.The trial court convicted the appellant primarily on the basis of the testimony of a solitary eye-witness, holding that conviction could be sustained on the testimony of a single witness if found reliable. Upon independently examining the evidence, the High Court found that the prosecution case suffered from serious infirmities.The Bench noted that the informant, who had lodged the FIR as an eye-witness, did not support the prosecution case during trial and did not implicate the appellant. The Court further observed that despite this, the prosecution did not declare him hostile. The Court also found material contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution's alleged eye-witness, observing that his examination-in-chief and cross-examination, read together, did not establish him to be a witness of sterling quality.The Bench held that the appellant's conviction could not be sustained solely on such evidence. It noted that although the Investigating Officer had seized a motorcycle, a Samsung mobile phone and an empty cartridge from the place of occurrence, he failed to ascertain the ownership of either the motorcycle or the mobile phone. The Court also found that the recovered empty cartridge was never sent for forensic examination to determine whether it had been fired from the weapon allegedly used in the offence. The Bench observed:“These were primary duties of the I.O. for investigation of a case like this. It appears to us that either the I.O. did not know the basic principles of investigation or purposefully withheld the evidences which could have been brought during investigation to save the accused persons.”The Court also noted that during trial, the seizure list witnesses were not confronted with their signatures on the seizure list and that one witness deposed that he had signed a blank paper at the instance of the Investigating Officer. Holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence and allowed the appeal.Taking serious note of the deficiencies in the investigation, the Court also directed that an inquiry be initiated against the Investigating Officer.Case Title: Meghnath Choupal @ Medhnath Choupal Sharma v. State of BiharCase Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 762 of 2018.Appearance: Mr. Amarnath Jha for the Appellant. Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma for the Respondent.Click Here To Read/Download Order

'Classic Example Of Improper, Lackadaisical Investigation': Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict, Orders Probe Against Investigating Officer

Rushil Batra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rushil Batra

'Classic Example Of Improper, Lackadaisical Investigation': Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict, Orders Probe Against Investigating Officer

Rushil Batra

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rushil Batra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers