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 :
“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: