Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: DESIGN defect in Bindeshwar Murmu Son Of Late Bhogal ... vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 6 April, 2026Matching Fragments
97. In case of Karnel Singh v. State of M.P., (1995) 5 SCC 518 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in cases of defective investigation, the Court has to 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.Paragraph-5 of this judgment is quoted herein below :
"5. Notwithstanding our unhappiness regarding the nature of investigation, we have to consider whether the evidence on record, even on strict scrutiny, establishes the guilt. In cases of defective 2026:JHHC:9719-DB investigation the court has to 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. Any investigating officer, in fairness to the prosecutrix as well as the accused, would have recorded the statements of the two witnesses and would have drawn up a proper seizure-memo in regard to the 'chaddi'. That is the reason why we have said that the investigation was slipshod and defective."
2026:JHHC:9719-DB
156. Fax is not part of the investigation. Even assuming that there is some defect in the investigation on this count, it will have no bearing on the prosecution case. This Court has observed in a number of cases that defective investigation by the investigating authorities by itself does not vitiate the case of the prosecution when there are credible eyewitness testimonies as well as other compelling pieces of evidence. In Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. [Karnel Singh v. State of M.P., (1995) 5 SCC 518 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 977] this Court held that : (SCC p. 521, para 5) "5. ... In cases of defective investigation the court has to 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."