Tag Archives: Criminal Investigation

Secondary Evidence – No Requirement of Application

There is no requirement that an application is required to be filed in terms of Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act before the secondary evidence is led. A party to the lis may choose to file an application which is required to be considered by the trial court but if any party to the suit has laid foundation of leading of secondary evidence, either in the plaint or in evidence, the secondary evidence cannot be ousted for consideration only because an application for permission to lead secondary evidence was not filed. Dhanpat v. Sheo Ram, (2020) 16 SCC 209.

Leave a comment

Filed under No Requirement of Application

Criminal Jurisprudence – Requires a Fair and Truthful Investigation

The principle in criminal jurisprudence requires a fair and truthful investigation. If an investigating agency which has been conferred the power to investigate on the basis of an FIR, if a second FIR as regards the same transaction is introduced, it is likely to be abused i.e. keeping in mind the interest of the accused. From the point of view of the victim when such information comes within the knowledge of the investigating officer, he can treat it as a part of continuing investigation under the Code and eventually file the charge-sheet or an additional charge-sheet as contemplated under Section 173 of the Code. The interests of both are involved. A fair investigation, conceptually speaking, is an acceptable facet of criminal jurisprudence, similarly it is also the duty of the courts to see whether the investigation carried out really causes prejudice to the accused requiring the court to exercise the power under Section 482 or Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the same, or it has looked into the interest of both the accused and the victim and, therefore, it should be left for the trial court to see the veracity of the truth of allegations that has come out in investigation. Manoj Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand, (2019) 5 SCC 667

Leave a comment

Filed under Fair and Truthful Investigation

Accused – Has No Right to Choose the Investigating Agency

In Narmada Rai v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 5 SCC 79, it was held as under:

        “It is trite law that accused persons do not have a say in the matter of appointment of an Investigation Agency. The accused persons cannot choose as to which Investigation Agency must investigate the alleged offence committed by them.”

        Further in the case of Rajendra Bhatt v. Union of India, (2016) 1 SCC 1 it was held as under:

        “The accused has no right with reference to the manner of investigation or mode of prosecution.”

        The Hon’ble Apex Court in Romila Thapar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 753, has held as under:         “It is clear that the consistent view of this Court is that the accused cannot ask for changing the Investigating Agency or to do investigation in a particular manner including for Court monitored investigation.” Silpa Devi Patel v. State of U.P., 2020 (110) ACC 514.

Leave a comment

Filed under Investigation Agency