What is duty of court if there is defective investigation?

Lapses in Investigation

30. In C. Muniappan and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu MANU/SC/0655/2010 : (2010) 9 SCC 567, this Court explained the law on this point in the following manner:

There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1482 of 2013

Decided On: 20.10.2016

 Yogesh Singh Vs.  Mahabeer Singh and Ors.

Print Page

Whether accused can be acquitted on ground of defective investigation?

The evidence of this prosecution witness is seriously challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no panchanama available on record of this proceeding. True it is that there is no panchanama on record. Preparation of the panchanama was not the job of this scientific personnel. It was the job of the investigating agency, the Police. Soyaskar (PW 15), P.S.I. gives explanation that he cannot assign any reason as to why he has not prepared any panchanama. Thus, it will be a lapse on the part of the investigating machinery. Even, it could be turned as a major lapse. The question is whether in view of this lapse on the part of the police, the evidence of the scientific personnel and his effort to substantiate the prosecution case should be thrown in dust-bin? In our view, the answer is ' no'.

The Apex Court in Karnel Singh..vs.. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in MANU/SC/0497/1995 : 1995 CRI.L.J. 4173 has ruled that in cases of the defective investigation the Court has to circumspect in evaluating the evidence but it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing in to the hands of the Investigating Officer if the investigation is designedly defective. The same view is reiterated by the Apex Court in the authoritative pronouncement reported in MANU/SC/0203/2004 : 2004 CRI.L.J. 1807 (Dhanaj Singh @ Shera and ors...vs.. State of Punjab).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 431 of 2014

Decided On: 08.08.2016

 Paramjitsingh

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai and V.M. Deshpande, JJ.

Citation: 2017 ALLMR (CRI)1079

Print Page

When adverse inference should be drawn against prosecution if it fails to produce CCTV footage?

 The trial court in its judgment held that non-collection of CCTV footage, incomplete site plan, non-inclusion of all records and sim details of mobile phones seized from the accused are instances of faulty investigation and the same would not affect the prosecution case. Non- production of CCTV footage, non-collection of call records (details) and sim details of mobile phones seized from the accused cannot be said to be mere instances of faulty investigation but amount to withholding of best evidence. It is not the case of the prosecution that CCTV footage could not be lifted or a CD copy could not be made.

28. As per Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act, if a party in possession of best evidence which will throw light in controversy withholds it, the court can draw an adverse inference against him notwithstanding that the onus of proving does not lie on him. The presumption under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act is only a permissible inference and not a necessary inference. Unlike presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, where the court has no option but to draw statutory presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, the Court has the option; the court may or may not raise presumption on the proof of certain facts. Drawing of presumption under Section 114 (g) of Evidence Act depends upon the nature of fact required to be proved and its importance in the controversy, the usual mode of proving it; the nature, quality and cogency of the evidence which has not been produced and its accessibility to the party concerned, all of which have to be taken into account. It is only when all these matters are duly considered that an adverse inference can be drawn against the party.

Supreme Court of India

Tomaso Bruno & Anr vs State Of U.P on 20 January, 2015

Bench: Anil R. Dave, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi

Citation;(2015)7 SCC178:AIR 2015 SC(SUPP)412

Print Page