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
Tag Archives: investigating officer
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.
In a criminal prosecution, there is an obligation cast on the investigator not only to be fair, judicious and just during investigation, but also that the investigation on the very face of it must appear to be so, eschewing any conduct or impression which may give rise to a real and genuine apprehension in the mind of an accused and not mere fanciful, that the investigation was not fair. In the circumstances, if an informant police official in a criminal prosecution, especially when carrying a reverse burden of proof, makes the allegations, is himself asked to investigate, serious doubts will naturally arise with regard to his fairness and impartiality. It is not necessary that bias must actually be proved. It would be illogical to presume and contrary to normal human conduct, that he would himself at the end of the investigation submit a closure report to conclude false implication with all its attendant consequences for the complainant himself. The result of the investigation would therefore be a foregone conclusion. Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, (2018) 17 SCC 627.
It is a settled legal proposition that evidence collected even by improper or illegal means is admissible if it is relevant and its genuineness stands proved. However, the Court may be cautious while scrutinizing such evidence. In such a fact situation, it may be considered a case of procedural lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer and it should not be discarded unless the appellant satisfies the court that any prejudice has been caused to him. Madhu v. State of Karnataka, 2014 (84) ACC 329.