Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

31. It was further pointed out that the blood-stained clothes of deceased Ramesh Chandra were taken in possession by the Investigating Officer and he did not send the same clothes to the chemical examiner. This only indicates the remissness on the part of the Investigating Officer. However, in this case there is no dispute that the death was caused due to antemortem injuries found on the person of the deceased. It is not disputed that it is not a homicidal death. In this case the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses are clear and cogent as such even it found defect in the investigation it pales insignificance when ocular testimony is found credible and cogent. 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.

32. In Dhanaj Singh alias Shera and Ors. v. State of Punjab , it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the instant case, the High Court found several disturbing features which indicated how the Investigating Officer had made out a new case to save the accused persons and to implicate the complainant party. Hence, the High Court analyzed the evidence of the eye-witnesses with due care and caution. On finding the said evidence to be credible, the High Court upheld the conviction recorded by the trial Court. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the accuded appellants challenged the conviction on the grounds (1) that the police after thorough investigation had concluded that it was the complainant party which caused the death of the deceased, (ii) that the pellets, wads and cartridges were not recovered from the spot, (iii) that the weapons of assault and the pellets were not sent for ballistic examination, (iv) that the blood-stained earth was not sent for chemical examination, (v) that many persons who could have thrown light on the incident had not been examined, and (vi) that the evidence being that of highly interested and inimical persons, should have been discarded. Dismissing the appeal, it was held by the Apex Court that even if the investigation is defective, that pales into insignificance when ocular testimony is found credible and cogent, In the case of a 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 designedly defective.

34. The Apex Court has, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant in Karnel Singh v. State of M. P. 1995 Cri LJ 4173, observed (Para 5):

Notwithstanding our unhappiness regarding the nature of investigation, have to consider whether the evidence on record, even on strict scrutiny, establishes the guilt. In case 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. 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 seisure memo in regard to the Chaddi. That is the reason why we have said the investigation was slipshod and defective.