Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. The learned counsel also assailed the investigation's quality, terming it "botched." He cited several alleged investigative failures: the lack of CCTV footage seizure from the complex, the failure to collect documentary or photographic evidence proving the petitioner's ownership of multiple dogs, the failure to take the dogs into custody for victim identification, the absence of specific dog descriptions in the complaint or witness statements, and the alleged lack of direct eyewitnesses, with all evidence being 'hearsay' from the victim. These failures, he argued, cumulatively demonstrate a lack of prima facie material against the petitioner, leading to the conclusion that the investigation was an "eyewash" conducted with an "oblique motive" to merely "oblige the alleged victim."

27. The petitioner claims ownership of only one dog, contradicting the complainant's allegation of 10-12 dogs. The very fact of the attack, dog identification, and the petitioner's alleged negligence are all highly contentious. The I.O.'s report, despite the petitioner's claims of a "botched" investigation, indicates that statements from available witnesses (like Nitesh Bansal) were recorded and formed the basis for concluding a prima facie case.

28. The law is firmly settled: where disputed questions of fact exist, the High Court, when exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should not embark upon an inquiry to resolve them. Such matters fall exclusively within the domain of the Trial Court, which is equipped to take evidence, allow cross-examination, and assess the credibility of witnesses and documents.

29. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, reiterated that the inherent power is not to be utilized for appreciating evidence or delving into factual disputes that can only be properly determined by the Trial Court.

30. Arguments regarding the non-seizure of CCTV footage, lack of photographic evidence, or improper dog identification procedures are all valid defences the petitioner may raise during trial to discredit the prosecution's case. While these point to potential investigative flaws, they do not automatically lead to quashing if other material prima facie suggests an offence. An investigation being "botched" is a matter to be tested during trial where the accused can highlight these lapses.