Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Apex Court in the case ofKarnail Singh versus State of MadhyaPradesh has observedas under:
"In case of defectiveinvestigation, it would not be proper toacquit the accused if the case isotherwise established conclusivelybecause in that event, it wouldtantamount to the falling into the handsof an erring investigating officer."

In the case of Ram Bihari Yadav v.State of Bihar, , theApex Court observed in Para 13 asunder:

"In such cases, the story of theprosecution will have to be examineddehors such omissions and contaminatedconduct of the officials otherwise themischief which was deliberately donewould be perpetuated and justice wouldbe denied to the complainant party andthis would obviously shake theconfidence of the people not merely inthe law-enforcing agency but also in theadministration of justice"

In the case of Paras Yadav v. Stateof Bihar the Courtheld as under:

"It may be that such lapse iscommitted designedly or because ofnegligence. Hence, the prosecutionevidence is required to be examineddehors such omission to find out whetherthe said evidence is reliable or not"

13. The High Court has also referred to a decision reported in 2000 S.C.C. (Crl.) 522 Ambica Prasad and another v. State(Delhi Administration) in which this Court observed that faultyinvestigation or witnesses turning hostile may not ultimately affectthe merit of the case nor it could be a ground to disbelieve thestatement of the prosecution witnesses.