Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: design to commit in Most Asha Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 25 September, 2025Matching Fragments
28. Learned Counsel further submits that the learned trial court has taken an adverse view for the reason that PW-1 did not disclose the name of the doctor to whom she was going with her husband. Further, the trial court has taken a view against the prosecution for the reason that even the children of the deceased have not been examined. In this connection, it is submitted that what is important is the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses. Learned Counsel further submits that in the case of Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2023) 12 SCC 558, (paragraph '29' and '30), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to discuss the principles governing the appreciation of ocular evidences. The same has been further discussed in the case of Edakkandi Dineshan and Others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2025) 3 SCC 273. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards paragraph '25' to '27' of the judgment in the case of Edakkandi Dineshan (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer should not be taken in favour of the accused because such lapses may be Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 committed designedly or because of negligence. In such situation, the prosecution evidence is required to be examined dehors such omissions to find out whether the said evidences are reliable or not. The accused would not be entitled to claim acquittal on the ground of faulty investigation done by the investigating agency.
26. A cumulative reading of the entire evidence on record suggests that the investigation has not taken place in a proper and disciplined manner. There are various areas where a proper Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 investigation could have strengthened its case. In Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar8, the Supreme Court observed as under : (SCC p. 130, para 8) "8. ... the lapse on the part of the investigating officer should not be taken in favour of the accused. It may be that such lapse is committed designedly or because of negligence. Hence, the prosecution evidence is required to be examined dehors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. For this purpose, it would be worthwhile to quote the following observations of this Court from Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar9: (SCC pp. 523-24, para 13) '13. ... In such cases, the story of the prosecution will have to be examined dehors such omissions and contaminated conduct of the officials otherwise the mischief which was deliberately done would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party and this would obviously shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law- enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice.' "
82. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Bihari Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in 1998 4 SCC 517, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Harendra Rai (supra) quoted paragraph '13' thereof as under:-
"13. Before parting with this case, we consider it appropriate to observe that though the prosecution has to prove the case against the accused in the manner stated by it and that any act or omission on the part of the prosecution giving rise to any reasonable doubt would go in favour of the accused, yet in a case like the present one where the record shows that investigating officers created a mess by Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 bringing on record Ext. 5/4 and GD Entry 517 and have exhibited remiss and/or deliberately omitted to do what they ought to have done to bail out the appellant who was a member of the police force or for any extraneous reason, the interest of justice demands that such acts or omissions of the officers of the prosecution should not be taken in favour of the accused, for that would amount to giving premium for the wrongs of the prosecution designedly committed to favour the appellant. In such cases, the story of the prosecution will have to be examined dehors such omissions and contaminated conduct of the officials otherwise the mischief which was deliberately done would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party and this would obviously shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law- enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice."
(emphasis in original)"
86. Speaking on the effect of lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paras Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in (1999) 2 SCC 126 observed in paragraph '8' as under:-
"8. ... the lapse on the part of the investigating officer should not be taken in favour of the accused. It may be that such lapse is committed designedly or because of negligence. Hence, the prosecution evidence is required to be examined dehors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not..."