Final Report Not Substantive Piece Of Evidence But A Collective Opinion Of Investigating Officer: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a final report cannot be termed as a substantive piece of evidence being nothing but a collective opinion of the investigating officer.Even assuming that the investigating officer has not deposed before the court or has not cooperated sufficiently, an accused is not entitled for acquittal solely on that basis, when there are other incriminating evidence available on record, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh observed.The court added that the evidence of the investigating officer is not indispensable, but required for corroboration and contradiction of the other material witnesses.In a judgment passed last week, the Supreme Court discussed the evidentiary value of a Final Report. The court was addressing the contention of the accused- appellants that that the investigating officer could not be cross examined further with respect to the injuries and the recoveries. In this context, the court observed:"Section 173(2) of the CrPC calls upon the investigating officer to file his final report before the court. It being a report, is nothing but a piece of evidence. It forms a mere opinion of the investigating officer on the materials collected by him. He takes note of the offence and thereafter, conducts an investigation to identify the offender, the truth of which can only be decided by the court. The aforesaid conclusion would lead to the position that the evidence of the investigating officer is not indispensable. The evidence is required for corroboration and contradiction of the other material witnesses as he is the one who links and presents them before the court. Even assuming that the investigating officer has not deposed before the court or has not cooperated sufficiently, an accused is not entitled for acquittal solely on that basis, when 16 there are other incriminating evidence available on record."The court, therefore, while dismissing the appeals, observed:"It is very unfortunate that the investigating officer could not be produced despite the best efforts made. The reason is obvious. There are three investigating officers. The other two investigating officers have been examined including for the charge under the Arms Act. PW-13, the first investigating officer, has been examined in extenso during cross examination. It is only for the further examination he turned turtle. That per se would not make the entire case of the prosecution bad is law particularly when the final report itself cannot be termed as a substantive piece of evidence being nothing but a collective opinion of the investigating officer."Case name Rajesh Yadav vs State of UPCitation2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137Case no.|date CrA 339-340 OF 2014 | 6 Feb 2022Coram Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM SundreshCaselaw (Headnotes)Criminal Trial - Long adjournments being given after the completion of the chief examination, only helps the defense to win them over at times, with the passage of time - The trial courts shall endeavor to complete the examination of the private witnesses both chief and cross on the same day as far as possible - The trial courts to take up the examination of the private witnesses first, before proceeding with that of the official witnesses. (Para 39)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173(2)- Evidentiary Value of a Final Report - Final Report, is nothing but a piece of evidence. It forms a mere opinion of the investigating officer on the materials collected by him. He takes note of the offence and thereafter, conducts an investigation to identify the offender, the truth of which can only be decided by the court- The final report itself cannot be termed as a substantive piece of evidence being nothing but a collective opinion of the investigating officer (Para 25, 37)Criminal Trial- The evidence of the investigating officer is not indispensable. The evidence is required for corroboration and contradiction of the other material witnesses as he is the one who links and presents them before the court - Even assuming that the investigating officer has not deposed before the court or has not cooperated sufficiently, an accused is not entitled for acquittal solely on that basis, when there are other incriminating evidence available on record. ((Para 25)Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 3- Definition of "Evidence"- Factor or material, lending a degree of probability through a logical inference to the existence of a fact. (Para 12)Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -Evidence Act is an "Adjective Law" highlighting and aiding substantive law- It is neither wholly procedural nor substantive, though trappings of both could be felt. (Para 12)Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Definition of "Proved" - The definition of the word "proved" though gives an impression of a mere interpretation, in effect, is the heart and soul of the entire Act. This clause, consciously speaks of proving a fact by considering the "matters before it". The importance is to the degree of probability in...

Final Report Not Substantive Piece Of Evidence But A Collective Opinion Of Investigating Officer: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags