Overzealous Investigation Fatal To Prosecution; Case Framed On Public Perceptions Ends Up In Mess : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court cautioned that an overzealous investigation can be as damaging to a prosecution as a lethargic one, observing that cases built on public perceptions and investigators' personal predilections often collapse and risk implicating innocent persons while allowing the real perpetrator to escape. The Court made the remark while dealing with a case involving the gruesome death of a couple in a house fire, where their son and daughter-in-law were accused of murder based largely on an alleged property dispute. Noting that the prosecution rested almost entirely on the supposed motive that the son bore resentment over not receiving his share in ancestral property, the Court said the investigation appeared to have been driven by the village's hostility against the accused. As a result, the truth was “sacrificed at the altar of perceived vengeance,” aided by the Investigating Officer's selective and careless pursuit of evidence, which ultimately derailed the prosecution case.Overzealous investigation is as fatal to prosecution as are the lethargic and the tardy. Framing a case on public perceptions and personal predilections ends up in a mess, often putting to peril an innocent and always letting free the perpetrator. Here, we have a case of gruesome death of a couple when their house was gutted in a fire, with the son and daughter-in-law accused of murder. The entire case is founded on motive; the ill-will the son harbored against the father for not having given him his due share in the ancestral property. The entire village was against the son and the mishap ended in an investigation where truth was sacrificed at the altar of perceived vengeance, ably assisted by the Investigating Officer's selective but careless pursuits, derailing the entire prosecution.The Court upheld the acquittal of a son and his wife who were accused of murdering his elderly parents, holding that serious inconsistencies in the dying declarations, coupled with the prosecution's failure to examine an independent witness, rendered the dying declaration unreliable.A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard the case in which the dying declaration of the deceased victim was recorded in the presence of interested witnesses. However, despite the availability of an independent witness, whom the interested witnesses themselves acknowledged as having knowledge of the incident, the prosecution failed to examine that witness. The case arose from the death of an elderly couple who sustained severe burn injuries at their residence. According to the prosecution, before succumbing to their injuries, the victims allegedly made dying declarations implicating their son and daughter-in-law as responsible for the incident. These statements formed the backbone of the prosecution's case. However, the defence contended that the dying declarations were unreliable as they contained inconsistencies and were recorded in the presence of close relatives who were interested witnesses. It was also pointed out that an independent person who was allegedly present during crucial moments was not examined by the prosecution. The trial court convicted the Respondent-accused persons, but the High Court acquitted them owing to the inconsistencies, unreliability of the dying declaration, and non-examination of an independent witness. Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the elder son of the deceased couple moved to the Supreme Court. Affirming the acquittal, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran noted that although a dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction, it must be free from doubt and inspire complete confidence. The Court found that the declarations were recorded in circumstances that raised suspicion, particularly because they were made in the presence of interested witnesses, and the prosecution failed to examine an independent witness who could have corroborated the circumstances in which the statements were recorded. “Even if it is assumed that the lady spoken of by the three witnesses was the very same person, she was the best witness who could have been examined with respect to the first indication of the crime. In fact, PW2 and PW3 specifically speak of that lady having been engaged in threshing paddy. There was every possibility of her having witnessed the fire breaking out and could have better explained the causation. The non-examination of the crucial witness, spoken of by the witnesses who reached the place later, on hearing her shouts, is a very serious lacuna in prosecution.”, the court observed. “There was a concerted effort by the I.O not to bring any independent witnesses to the stand. The investigation, according to us was a sham and was premeditated, throwing to the winds every tenet of criminal jurisprudence informed by due procedure.”, the court added. In fact, the Court found the entire prosecution case was built out of ill will and public perceptions against the...

Overzealous Investigation Fatal To Prosecution; Case Framed On Public Perceptions Ends Up In Mess : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Such investigations perils the innocent and allows the perpetrator to go free, the Court cautioned.

Tags