Analysis of errors in investigation with the aid of SC cases

Introduction

The essential reason for the Criminal Justice System is the tradition that must be adhered to. The very procedure of law in a majority rule society guarantees a measure of open authorization for law through the assent communicated by their chosen delegates. The whole criminal equity framework in our nation subsequently spins around the Criminal Law authorized by the Union Parliament and the State Legislatures. After laws are made by the authoritative organizations their authorization is taken up by different offices set up for the reason by the Government. Police come at this phase as the essential law requirement organization accessible to the State. Requirement by Police is principally an activity of taking due notice of the infraction of laws when it happens and finding out the associated certainties thereof including the personality of the wrongdoer. This specific undertaking in the arrangement of Criminal Justice is known as 'Investigation'.

investigation

Meaning of Investigation

According to Webster’s New Dictionary,

“To see is the most general of the terms used in place of the verb ‘to investigate’. It is used to imply little more than the use of the organs of vision but more commonly it implies a recognition or appreciation of what is before one’s eyes. The term may imply the exercise of other powers that the sense of sight, including a vivid imagination.”

supreme court’s decisions

Across the years the Supreme Court has taken the matter regarding the Code of Criminal Procedure with certainty and proper principles. Some important decisions are discussed hereunder:

• Evidence cannot be deemed inadmissible on the ground that it was not mentioned in the FIR as being left by the accused at the place of occurrence, where it corroborates the evidence.

Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors

In this case, the dead were executed by the handle of a tractor. The way that the denounced left the tractor at the place of the event was let alone for the FIR. The High Court held that due to this oversight, the recuperation of the tractor was no assistance to the indictment case. On that ground, it cleared the respondent. The Supreme Court toppled the judgment of the High Court, expressing that the FIR is not anticipated that would contain every one of the points of interest. There is no space for the uncertainty that the tractor was left at the place of an event by the charged while fleeing with its handle. The handle itself was recuperated also. Taking into the entire of the confirmation, the Supreme Court sentenced.

• Testimony of a witness cannot be rejected merely one ground that his/her name was not mentioned in the FIR, especially when the witness has suffered injuries.

Bhagwan Singh & Ors. v. State of MP

In a squabble, the expired was killed. The lower court cleared on the ground of self-preservation. It overlooked the declaration of three observers because of one not being specified in the FIR and all being relatives of the perished. The High Court, in turning around the quittance, held the three to be common observers as the declaration was verified by therapeutic proof. It additionally expressed that the unimportant letting alone for a witness' name in the FIR does not make the declaration unacceptable. The Supreme Court maintained the High Court's discoveries.

• Inordinate delay in Investigation by itself is not sufficient to seek quashing of the FIR:

State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.V. Pavithran

The case having been enlisted in March 1984, the indictment did not document its report under Section 173 until the appealing party recorded the request for subduing the procedures in November 1987. The respondent opposed expressing that the postponement happened because of the late strategies received by the respondent, and the case was an entangled and tedious one. The High Court in like manner suppressed the FIR. The Supreme Court held that no broad and wide suggestion of law could be planned that says that at whatever point there is an ordinate delay with respect to the examination organization in finishing the examination, it would turn into a ground for subduing the FIR or procedures emerging therefrom.

• A general diary entry that discloses a cognizable offense can be treated as FIR.

Superintendent of Police, CBI & Ors. V. Tapan Kr. Singh

The High Court, on revision petition, subdued the examination on the premise of G.D. Section, FIR, cause under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the inquiry and seizure led. The question was whether the report the Superintendent got from a dependable source on the phone that the respondent was degenerate could be considered as data under 154. The High Court expressed that the GD section did not uncover the commission of a cognizable offense, accordingly, examination as per it was illicit. FIR stopped after examination had started was to some extent unlawful. The Supreme Court permitted the duration of the examination to express that the GD could be utilized as an FIR and did in truth reveal a cognizable offense.

• Police officer is an informant himself, not a disqualification to conduct the investigation:

State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance, and Anti-corruption, Tiruchirapalli, TN v. V. Jayapaul[6]

The High Court quashed the procedures on the ground that the cop, who had laid/recorded the FIR with respect to the associated commission with certain cognizable offenses by the respondent, ought not to have examined and presented the last report. The Supreme Court varied, expressing that there is no rule or restricting expert that expresses the minute a skilled cop makes out an FIR consolidating his name as the source on the premise of data got, and it relinquishes his entitlement to explore. The reproved request of the High Court was put aside.

• Incompetency of the officer to carry on investigation extends only to quash the investigation, and not the FIR.

State of Haryana & Ors. V. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's choice to subdue the FIR, however, suppressed the beginning and in addition the whole examination on the ground that the third litigant is not dressed with a legitimate lawful specialist to take up the examination and continue with the same. The claim was rejected, expressing that the State Government was at freedom to coordinate a new examination.

SUGGESTIONS MADE FOR IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF THE INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE AND TRIAL

Alternative to the appointment of Legal Officers:

As an alternative to the appointment of legal officers, the state can give assent to the Investigating officer to consult the prosecutor during the investigation and make a suggestion, which will help to improve the quality of investigation. This is suggested despite SC’s declaration that the prosecutor shall not mess with the investigation. It is found that in many cases the police officers don’t know the nuances of the law of evidence and the case will not stand the sharp cross-examination of the defence counsel.

Networking the Police Stations with the Criminal Courts:

Networking with all the police stations and links within the trial courts will improve the situation a lot as there might be an immediate transmission of documents, through which the possibility of manipulating or interfering with the documents would drastically reduce.

Recording Reasons for delay by Investigating Officer:

If the Investigating Officer records the reasons for any delay in lodging of FIR if any, that will help the prosecution in getting the delay condoned. While conducting the survey of cases in several cases we have noticed that the defence counsel raised an objection whenever there is an inch of delay in lodging of FIR and in some cases the cases were quashed on this ground. By observing the afore-mentioned precaution this problem could be solved to some extent.

Hostile Witnesses

For avoiding the problem of witnesses turning hostile and frustrating the entire criminal justice system including the hard work of the police, every effort should be made to help the witnesses, secure their morale, provide them with safety for their physical being and make it extremely easy and respectful for them to depose the truth in a courtroom. Witness support systems, honouring their requirements, and respecting their time is utmost important.

Case Diary

Every aspect of the investigation procedure should be made to see that the case diaries are maintained properly for some reason such as paucity of time as that affects the outcome of a criminal case

Recovery of the stolen property

All the changes shall be made in the criminal procedure for restoring the recovered property to the owner as quickly as possible. Now, the recovered property will be sent to malkhana where it’ll lie for years. By the time the property is restored to the owner, it will become useless for him

Increasing the number of police stations and courts:

A number of courts and police stations shall be increased to the tune of the increasing population. (Mallimath committee observed that an investigating officer on an average investigates 45 cases in a year. Whereas in Andhra Pradesh, the Investigating officer is attending to 145 cases approximately in a year which is relatively very high).

The author is Dhruvi Anajwala, 3rd Year, Gujarat National Law University

References

1. Merriam Webster, Webster’s New Dictionary of Synonyms 717 (Ottenheimer 1978).
2. Jagtar Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 463.
3. Bhagwan Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2002 SC 1621.
4. State of Andhra Pradesh v P.V. Pavithran, AIR 1990 SC 1266.
5. Superintendent of Police, CBI & Ors. V. Tapan Kr. Singh, AIR 2003 SC 4140.
6. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance, and Anti-corruption, Tiruchirapalli, TN v. V. Jayapaul, AIR 2004 SC 2684.
7. State of Haryana & Ors. V. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604.
8. MERRIAM WEBSTER, WEBSTER’S NEW DICTIONARY OF SYNONYMS 717 (Ottenheimer 1978).
9. Jagtar Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 463.
10. Bhagwan Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2002 SC 1621.
11. State of Andhra Pradesh v P.V. Pavithran, AIR 1990 SC 1266.
12. Superintendent of Police, CBI & Ors. V. Tapan Kr. Singh, AIR 2003 SC 4140.
13. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance, and Anti-corruption, Tiruchirapalli, TN v. V. Jayapaul, AIR 2004 SC 2684.
14. State of Haryana & Ors. V. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604.