Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Mere Negligence On Part Of The IO Does Not Defy The Prosecution's Case: Allahabad HC [Read Judgment]

AKSHITA SAXENA
2 Aug 2019 5:08 AM GMT
Mere Negligence On Part Of The IO Does Not Defy The Prosecutions Case: Allahabad HC [Read Judgment]
x

Dismissing a criminal appeal filed by the Appellant convict, the Allahabad High Court held that omission on the part of the Investigating Officer (IO) cannot go against the prosecution's case. The Appellant was convicted by the lower court for the offence of Murder under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by the said order, he contended that the key witnesses...

Dismissing a criminal appeal filed by the Appellant convict, the Allahabad High Court held that omission on the part of the Investigating Officer (IO) cannot go against the prosecution's case.

The Appellant was convicted by the lower court for the offence of Murder under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by the said order, he contended that the key witnesses of the prosecution went hostile. Further, the order was passed based on the sole testimony of a witness who was not even mentioned in the site-plan of the crime scene prepared by the IO.

The division bench comprised by Justice Ram Surat Ram (Maurya) and Justice Umesh Kumar closely examined the evidence placed on record and held that the witness in question was fully trustworthy and reliable and his testimony was corroborated with medical evidence. They relied on Sudip Kumar Sen alias Biltu v. State of West Bengal & Ors., (2016) 3 SCC 26, wherein the Apex Court had held that a court may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated, provided that the testimony of the single witness is found reliable.

On the contention that the witness was not mentioned in the site-plan, the court relied on Rahul Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2015 SC 3043, and held that negligence on part of the IO could not defy the prosecution's case. "Mere irregularity or omission on the part of the Investigating Officer does not cast cloud over prosecution version as the Investigating Officer is not obliged to anticipate all possible defenses and investigate in that angle. In any event, omission on the part of the Investigating Officer cannot go against prosecution. The interest of justice demands that such acts or omission of the Investigating Officer should not be taken in favour of accused or otherwise, it would amount to placing premium upon such omissions", the court said. 

Click here to download the Judgment


Next Story