28 April 2022 4:24 AM GMT
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior bench recently directed the DGP of the State to send a Police Officer for a training for not less than six months to learn the law and the manner of investigation. Court passed the said directions pursuant to its observation on a regular basis that the police was filing charge-sheet only on the basis of confessional statements made by...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior bench recently directed the DGP of the State to send a Police Officer for a training for not less than six months to learn the law and the manner of investigation.
Court passed the said directions pursuant to its observation on a regular basis that the police was filing charge-sheet only on the basis of confessional statements made by the accused persons without making any effort to collect any substantive evidence against them.
Hearing the bail application moved by the Applicant U/S 439 CRPC, Justice G.S. Ahluwahlia observed-
This Court is regularly observing that the police is filing the charge-sheet only on the basis of confessional statement made by the accused persons without making any effort to collect any substantive evidence against them. On earlier occasion also, this Court had marked the orders to the Director General of Police to take corrective measures in the matter, but the things have not improved and, therefore, it is clear that at least Shri Rambabu Singh, SHO, requires an immediate training of law as well as manner of investigation.
Accordingly, the Director General of Police, State of MP, Bhopal is directed to immediately send Shri Rambabu Singh Yadav, SHO Police Station Dehat Kotwali, District Bhind for a police training to learn the law as well as the manner of investigation. Training must be of at least six months and not less than that. The training shall be conducted in any PTS of the choice of Director General of Police. The Director General of Police, State of MP, Bhopal is also directed to submit his report before the Principal Registrar of this Court within a period of 15 days.
The facts of the case were that the Applicant's earlier bail application was rejected with an observation that he was produced after 10 years on execution of production warrant as he was in jail in connection with some other offence. It was further noted that neither the Test Identification Parade was conducted and nor the supplementary charge-sheet was filed.
It was submitted before the Court that there was no evidence against the Applicant other than the confessional statement made by the co-accused U/S 27 Evidence Act.
The Court sought for clarification from the Police as to why the Test Identification Parade was not conducted despite its observation in the order dismissing the previous bail application moved by the Applicant. The Police Officer concerned submitted before the Court that he took the necessary steps after the case 'came into his cognizance'. Noting his submission, the Court observed-
Reply given by Shri Rambabu Singh was shocking. He was not ready to understand the implication of his submission that "now the matter has come to his cognizance". First of all, this Court is unable to understand the meaning of "cognizance" in the language of the Investigating Officer.
Seeking further clarifications from the Police Officer, the Court noted that the he did not have conceptual understanding with regard to Production Warrant. The Court further recorded the opinion of the Officer that since the charge-sheet against the Applicant U/S 299 CRPC was filed, 'there was no need to file any supplementary charge-sheet'.
After questioning the Police Officer concerned regarding the status of the case, the Court opined that he was aware of each and everything, yet he was sitting tight on the matter. the Court held that this showed a 'lack of legal knowledge as well as lack of efficiency on the part of SHO'. Accordingly, the Court directed the DGP to ensure that the Officer was sent for a compulsory training.
With regard to the bail application, the Court noted that the Applicant deserved to be enlarged on bail as there was neither any substantive evidence collected against him nor was anything recovered from him.
With the aforesaid observations, the Applicant was granted bail and accordingly, the application was disposed of.
Case Title: Rajveer Singh Jatav Vs. State of MP
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 128
Click Here To Read/Download Order