‘Investigating Officer Did Not Meet The Obligations’: Supreme Court Reverses Murder Conviction Imposed By Trial Court, Affirmed By High Court

Recently, while reversing a conviction imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by Chhattisgarh High Court, inter alia, for murder, the Supreme Court noted that the investigating officer did not meet the obligations cast upon him under Chapter XII of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. “...we may observe that the Investigating Officer did not meet the obligations he was under. As we have noticed above, numerous infirmities affected the conduct of the Investigation Officer calling into question, credibly, the investigation conducted by him or upon his directions.”The Apex Court also noted that the High Court had in a perfunctory manner held the prosecution to have established the case. A Bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol noted the Investigating officer has a statutory duty to bring the offenders to book and facilitate the ultimate search for truth; he has a constitutional obligation to ensure maintenance of pear and upholding of rule of law. Factual Background A businessman was shot by two motorcyclists. He was taken to a hospital where he succumbed to the injury. The same night, an FIR was registered. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed naming the appellant and several others. The Trial Court acquitted one and convicted and sentenced seven under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Arms Act, 1959. In appeal, the High Court acquitted all the accused persons except the appellant. Analysis by the Supreme CourtAt the threshold the Court noted that the prosecution’s case is one based solely on circumstantial evidence. Moreover, neither of the two independent witnesses supported the prosecution’s case; nothing substantial could be culled out from their depositions to indicate the appellant’s guilt. It was taken note of that testimony one of these two witnesses disclosed that police threatened them and took their signature on a blank paper, purported to be used by the investigating agency to strengthen its case. The nephew of the deceased who was one of the prosecution witnesses had not pointed fingers at any of the accused persons. The Court noted that the testimony of the Investigating Officer ran into 97 pages and revealed that he miserably failed to investigate the case. It also disclosed the fact that the appellant was not present at the spot of crime and was only roped into the case as an accused on the basis of the disclosure statements of co-accused. Whether the Investigating Officer in the present case had complied with the duties and responsibilities cast upon him by virtue of Chapter XII of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973?The Investigating Officer concedes that neither the appellant nor the said co-accused person’s statements were recorded by him, in his hand, or by any other named persons under his instructions. Furthermore, there exists no direct evidence to prove the ballistic report; neither the expert who conducted chemical analysis nor the author of the report were examined. The Investigating Officer did not place on record any case diary; written communication to show that the appellant was called to the police station. Before arresting the accused, their family members were not supplied any information. Accused were arrested from other states without supplying any information to their relatives in contravention of the law laid down in DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416. The owner of the house from where recoveries were made was not examined.The Court did not find the veracity of the Investigating Officer's testimony to inspire conspiracy for several reasons that are listed below -did not examine the owner of the house from where recovery was made;did not enter movement in case diary;did not record that he took the accused for effecting the recovery;was not able to describe clearly the are from where the recovery was effected;admitted both the independent witnesses, who do not belong to the area from where the recoveries were effected;did not associate any of the residents of the area for conducting the search;did not examine any of the residents for carrying out any further investigation and he admitted that both the memo of arrest as also the recovery not to have been prepared by him or bearing his signature and same too, have many corrections and over-writing, thus reducing the correctness and authenticity of this document;he was not clear about the description of the recovered articles.Whether the court below, while acquitting all the other co-accused in connection with the same crime, erred in not returning a finding qua the instant appellant – a co-accused in respect of a charged framed under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?There was nothing on record to suggest that the appellant had conspired to commit murder; at best it could have been shown that he concealed relevant incriminating evidence. The Court noted that in order to prove the offence of criminal conspiracy it is imperative to show a meeting of...

‘Investigating Officer Did Not Meet The Obligations’: Supreme Court Reverses Murder Conviction Imposed By Trial Court, Affirmed By High Court

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sohini Chowdhury

‘Investigating Officer Did Not Meet The Obligations’: Supreme Court Reverses Murder Conviction Imposed By Trial Court, Affirmed By High Court

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers