Murder | Mere Non-Receipt Of 'Viscera Report' Would Not Render Investigation Incomplete For Granting Default Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that in a murder case, mere non-receipt of viscera report will neither render the investigation incomplete nor render the Magistrate unable to take cognizance.

While rejecting the plea challenging refusal of a default bail, Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said,

"Mere non-receipt of the viscera report alone would neither render the investigation incomplete nor render the Magistrate unable to take cognizance; moreso when the instant case is based on eye witness account wherein the identity of the deceased is not in dispute and furthermore, the manner in which the injuries were allegedly inflicted upon him also stands detailed in the FIR in question."

These observations came in response to the plea filed for quashing of order passed by a Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, in FIR relating to Sections 302, 323, 148, 149 of the IPC, (Section 427 of the IPC added later on) registered at Punjab's Rupnagar whereby application filed by them for grant of default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC was dismissed.

According to Prosecution, petitioners had entered the complainant's land and one of them hit his car and gave several blows with stick to his driver, as a result of which he died.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that they were arrested in the case in hand in March 22, 2023 and challan under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. was presented on June 20, 2023 which, however, was an incomplete challan since neither the DNA report nor the viscera report nor any FSL report along with other relevant documents were annexed with it.

On the other hand, the counsel for the state contended that the case in hand rests upon eye witness account, and the investigating agency had gathered sufficient material to enable the Court to take cognizance. Hence, mere non-receipt of Chemical Examiner's Report etc. would not enure to the benefit of the petitioners so as to entitle them to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.

After considering the submissions, the Court noted that a co-joint reading of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. as well as Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. reveals that a great deal of emphasis has been placed on completion of "investigation". The key question which thus arises is concerning the implication of the term "investigation" as appearing in both the above Sections, and when can it be considered to have concluded in cases under the IPC, it added the Court.

Perusing the definition of "investigation" under section 2 (h) of CrPC, the Court said. "it can be said that this definition encompasses all proceedings conducted by the investigating agency to collect material in aiding the Magistrate to determine whether an offence has been committed or not."

"Thus, in the instant case, the most important question which arises for the consideration of this Court is whether the investigation was incomplete when the right of default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. had accrued to the petitioners," it said.

Justice Kaul opined that,

"Unlike in cases under the NDPS Act where FSL report/Chemical Examiner's report is required for positive determination of the substance recovered in order to ascertain whether an offence has been committed or not, for offences under the IPC, the statements of the complainant and witnesses, including the injured witnesses, form the foundation of the case of the prosecution, and other evidence including the medical evidence would at best be corroborative pieces of evidence."

The Court further said, mere non-receipt of the viscera report alone would neither render the investigation incomplete nor render the Magistrate unable to take cognizance, more so when the instant case is based on eye witness account wherein the identity of the deceased is not in dispute and furthermore, the manner in which the injuries were allegedly inflicted upon him also stands detailed in the FIR in question.

Reliance was also placed upon,  Apex Court's decision in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kapil Wadhawan and another, 2024, to underscore that once a charge sheet has been filed, the right of an accused to claim default bail would cease precisely for the reason that the Court in cases under the IPC takes cognizance of the offence and not the offender; incomplete charge sheets with some missing documents and the pendency of the further investigation would not invalidate the charge sheet as long as the Court is satisfied with the evidence.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the plea.

Appearance: Mansur Ali and Imran Ahmad, Advocates for the petitioner.

 Adhiraj Thind, AAG for Punjab.

Lalit Singla and  Varsha Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 51

Title: Narinder Kumar and another v. State of Punjab and others.

Click here to read/download the order