Hema vs. State, thr. Inspector of Police, Madras, Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2013 (Arising out of
S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9190 of 2011), Decided on 7th January, 2013
The Hon’ble
Supreme Court held:
“It is clear that merely
because of some defect in the investigation, lapse on the part of the I.O., it
cannot be a ground for acquittal. Further, even if there had been negligence on
the part of the investigating agency or omissions etc., it is the obligation on
the part of the Court to scrutinize the prosecution evidence de hors such
lapses to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and whether
such lapses affect the object of finding out the truth.” [Para 13]
The Court noted
following case laws:
C. Muniappan and
Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 (9) SCC 567, the Court observed:
“55. 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.
Dayal Singh and
Others vs. State of Uttaranchal, 2012 (8) SCC 263, while reiterating the
principles rendered in C. Muniappan case, the Court held thus:
“18. … Merely because PW 3 and PW 6 have failed to perform their
duties in accordance with the requirements of law, and there has been some
defect in the investigation, it will not be to the benefit of the accused persons
to the extent that they would be entitled to an order of acquittal on this
ground. …”
Gajoo vs. State
of Uttarakhand, 2012 (9) SCC 532, while reiterating the same principle again,
this Court held that defective investigation, unless affects the very root of the
prosecution case and is prejudicial to the accused should not be an aspect of
material consideration by the Court.
To see full text
follow the link: