Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

38. Error, illegality or defect in investigation cannot have any impact unless miscarriage of justice is brought out. To this effect, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has clearly held in Abu Thakir and other V/s State of Tamilnadu (2010) 5 SCC 91 that when the prosecution case is established by evidence, any failure or omission on the part of the Investigating Officer cannot render the prosecution's case doubtful or unworthy of belief. If direct evidence is credible, failure, defect of negligence Judge sign cannot affect the prosecution's case. The Court should be 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 into the hands of the Investigating Officer if the investigation is designedly defective. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar and others (1998) 4 SCC 517, if primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigation, to the omission or lapses by perfunctory investigation or omissions, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice. The view was again reiterated in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and others (2003 (2) SCC 518). If ocular evidence is reliable, defect in investigation such as not collecting call details will not be adverse to the prosecution case. It is also important to note that, nothing has been culled out from the mouth of the investigation officers by the learned counsel for the accused Judge sign that to suggest he has purposely avoided the collecting of call details.