The Supreme Court docket on Tuesday (September 1) noticed that although a defective investigation can’t, by itself, function to the good thing about an accused, Courts additionally can’t presume guilt merely as a result of the Investigating Officer (IO) was recalcitrant or confronted allegations of collusion, notably when the prosecution has failed to supply dependable proof establishing the accused’s guilt.
“A defective investigation can’t inure to the good thing about the accused, however when there isn’t any dependable proof, merely as a result of the I.O was recalcitrant or a grievance of collusion was raised in opposition to him, the Court docket can’t presume the guilt of the accused.”, noticed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Okay. Vinod Chandran.
The prosecution case was that the deceased, together with 4 others (a son, an worker, a nephew, and a villager), have been continuing to fields when the accused ambushed the celebration, began indiscriminate firing, and shot the deceased within the again. The sufferer succumbed to the gunshot damage. A patrolling automotive with a Justice of the Peace arrived on the spot, and the accused ran away.
The prosecution went to trial with 9 witnesses. The accused have been convicted underneath Sections 302 and 307 learn with Part 149 IPC. Aggrieved by the Excessive Court docket’s choice to uphold their conviction, they filed an enchantment earlier than the Supreme Court docket.
The Excessive Court docket, whereas contemplating the case, had discovered a grievance in opposition to the I.O. alleging that he had carried out a collusive investigation. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court docket famous that the grievance had not been elicited from any of the eyewitnesses and didn’t clarify the deficiencies within the investigation.
The Excessive Court docket nonetheless relied upon the alleged collusion to elucidate why impartial witnesses weren’t examined, why blood-stained earth was not despatched for chemical examination and why blood-stained garments weren’t seized. It then handled the eyewitness testimony as “constant proof” and proceeded to convict the accused.
The accused challenged their conviction, citing a defective investigation by the police; furthermore, they contended that no proof was introduced on document to show their guilt past an inexpensive doubt.
Opposing the accused’s stand, the State, supporting the conviction, contended {that a} mere defective investigation can’t profit the accused, on condition that the investigating officer grew to become recalcitrant.
Rejecting the State’s argument, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran although agreed with the submission that the defective investigation can’t enure to the good thing about the accused, it additionally clarified that the courts can’t presume the guilt of the accused when the IO grew to become recalcitrant, slightly a conviction can solely be recorded when a dependable proof is introduced on document establishing the guilt of the accused past an inexpensive doubt.
“There’s full lack of proof within the current case and the testimonies, as we noticed, don’t encourage confidence.”, the Court docket mentioned, stating {that a} mere collusion of the IO wouldn’t result in the presumption of guilt. Somewhat, proof have to be led that evokes confidence that the accused have dedicated against the law.
The Court docket mentioned that the Excessive Court docket erred in giving weightage to the grievance registered in opposition to the IO, which the Court docket termed as a tactic by the prosecution to fill within the lacuna of their case.
“The case shouldn’t be of a defective investigation however of no investigation having been carried out. Even the inquest was carried out earlier than the FIS was recorded; making it pre-meditated. The Excessive Court docket egregiously erred in taking a look at a grievance in opposition to the I.O not produced within the trial, to search out the proof led to be clinching insofar because the culpability of the accused.”, the Court docket mentioned.
Additionally, the Court docket highlighted a number of severe deficiencies within the investigation, resembling cartridges weren’t recovered from the scene regardless of the prosecution alleging indiscriminate firing. The bullet which had triggered the deadly damage and exited the deceased’s physique was additionally not recovered. There was additionally no try to get better the weapons allegedly utilized by the accused. Though blood-stained earth had been collected from the scene, it was not despatched for chemical evaluation.
The Court docket additionally famous that the inquest had been carried out earlier than the First Info Assertion was recorded, describing the sequence as indicating that the inquest was “pre-meditated”.
“We’re unable to search out the prosecution having established the culpability of the accused past affordable doubt.”, the Court docket mentioned.
Because of this, the enchantment was allowed, paving the way in which for his or her launch.
Trigger Title: Dhrub Singh And so on. v. The State of Bihar
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 883
Click here to download judgment
Look:
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv.(NP) Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, AOR Mr. Adarsh Kumar Tiwari, AOR Ms. Jemtiben Ao, Adv. Ms. Arundhuti Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Vartika Maurya, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Raj Mishra, Adv. Mr. Amritesh Anand, Adv. Mr. Vinit Pathak, Adv. Mr. Sagar Khaushik, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Anand Mishra, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Vikkey, AOR Mr. Loveleen Kaithwas, Adv. Mr. Kanchan Kumar Jha, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kumar Saurav, Adv.
