The Allahabad High Court has directed Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj to take appropriate action against police sub-inspectors of Meja police station for their gross negligence in an investigation by not recording the statement of eyewitnesses of a suicide.

A single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Rajesh Sonkar.

The matter relates to the FIR dated 18.5.2022 (Case Crime No 244 of 2022, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station- Meja, District Allahabad/ Prayagraj) lodged by the informant Akhilesh Sonkar, who is brother of the deceased, with specific averment inter-alia that his nephew is the eye-witness of the incident.

The counsel for the applicant while pressing the bail application of the accused-applicant vehemently urged that fair investigation is also a fundamental right of the accused, which has not been done in the case.

In this regard, he pointed out that the Investigating Officer in collusion with the informant didn’t record the statement of eye-witnesses mentioned in the FIR but submitted a chargesheet against the applicant.

On the Court’s query for not recording of statements of eye-witnesses, it was submitted by the first Investigating Officer SI Harish Chandra that the first information report of the case was lodged on 18.05.2022 and he has recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161 CrPC on 18.05.2022.

The Court noted that he was then transferred on 20.05.2022. The second Investigating Officer SI Jagdish Kumar, who conducted the investigation from 30.06.2022 to 18.09.2022 (from C.D. Nos. II to IV) has not given any cogent reason in his affidavit for non-recording of the statements of eye-witnesses.

The stand of third Investigating Officer SI Govind Ram is that he conducted the investigation from 18.09.2022 to 26.01.2023 (from C.D Nos V to XI).

He submitted before the Court that since the period of conducting the investigation was going to be expire, he without recording the statements of eye-witnesses, submitted a chargesheet on 13.09.2022 against the applicant and investigation with regard to others is pending.

It is also pointed out that after passing the order dated 24.01.2023 by the Court, he has recorded the statements of eye-witnesses, namely, Golu, Monu and Sonu and the same have been recorded in C.D No XI dated 26.01.2023.

Here it is also relevant to mention that eyewitnesses, namely, Monu and Sonu are also present before the Court and they, in presence of all the Investigating Officers, have stated that they have not given such statements which have been recorded by the third/present Investigating Officer of the case in C.D No XI dated 26.01.2023.

The AGA representing the state submitted that Investigating Officers are tendering their unconditional apology and they shall remain careful in future in conducting the investigation but under the facts of the case and considering the conduct of the Investigating Officers, the Court did not find any good ground to accept their apology.

“The Court is of the view that investigation must be fair, impartial, conscious and uninfluenced by any external influences. It is not only the responsibility of the investigating officer but that of Courts to ensure fair investigation, which is one of the essentials of the criminal justice system and an integral facet of rule of law.

After going through the affidavits filed by the Investigating Officers, this Court is not satisfied with their reply and the manner in which investigation has been conducted by them as noted above,” the Court observed.

“In view of the above, the matter is referred to Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, who will look into the matter and take appropriate action against the erring Investigating Officer(s) by the next date fixed in the matter.

Personal appearance of all the Investigating Officers is hereby exempted. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate the order to the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj within 48 hours,” the Court ordered.

The Court has fixed the next hearing on February 22, 2022.

The Madras High Court has given six more weeks’ time to the CB-CID for completing the probe into the alleged sexual harassment of a woman IPS officer by a senior official.

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh passed this order on Friday in the petition filed by a high-ranked police officer of Tamil Nadu Police.

The Court, while passing the earlier order on April 30, 2021, directed the Investigation Officer to take effective steps to complete the investigation and file the final report within a period of six weeks.

The Investigation Officer has sworn to an affidavit on June 15, 2021 and has assigned the reasons while seeking for six more weeks time to file the final report.

The State Public Prosecutor submitted that after the earlier order was passed on April 30, 2021, the Investigation Officer had recorded the statements of 7 more witnesses and thus far 113 witnesses were examined and their statements have been recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C.

The State Public Prosecutor further submitted that further statements were also recorded from some of the witnesses, who were already examined earlier.

He would further submitted that the 164 Cr.P.C. statements have been recorded from all the 7 witnesses and what remains is the analysis report and the same is pending with the Forensic Department. The State Public Prosecutor, on instructions from the Investigation Officer, submitted that all efforts are being taken to collect the analysis report and an outer time limit of six more weeks may be granted in order to file the final report in the case.

The Investigation Officer also stated that the relevant certificates as required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is also parallely collected. The Investigation Officer stated that all efforts will be taken to complete the investigation and file the final report before the concerned jurisdictional Court within a period of six weeks.

R.Shanmugasundaram, Advocate General appearing on behalf of the second and third respondents submitted that insofar as the report of the Internal Complaints Committee is concerned, the same has already been submitted to the Secretary, Home Department and steps are being taken to proceed further on the basis of the report submitted.

The Court is satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed by the Investigation Officer for not being able to complete the investigation within six weeks as expected by the Court in the previous order dated April 30, 2021.

Read Also: Kerala High Court frees man because he’s charged under wrong CrPC provision

The investigation is almost complete and what remains is certain reports to be collected by the Investigation Officer before the final report is filed before the concerned jurisdictional Court.

“Taking into consideration the Status Report filed by the Investigation Officer and also the submissions made by the Advocate General and the State Public Prosecutor, the Court is inclined to extend the time for filing of the final report.

Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the Investigation Officer to complete the investigation and file the final report before the concerned jurisdictional Court within a period of six weeks,” the Court ordered.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court’s 5-Judge Constitution bench today ruled that it cannot be held as a general proposition that an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (NDPS) is entitled to acquittal merely because the complainant is also the investigating officer (IO).

The bench, comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M R Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat observed:

“Merely because the informant and the investigating officer is the same, it cannot be said that the investigation is biased and the trial is vitiated.”

The Constitution Bench clarified that it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case if the investigation has become tainted because the informant and the investigation officer were the same. It cannot be held as a blanket rule.

The bench said that the acquittal already given by the Supreme Court on the ground that the investigating officer and the complainant was the same will apply to the facts of those cases only and cannot apply as a general rule.

The bench was hearing on a question of law referred by a three-judge bench on whether trial of cases under NDPS Act will be vitiated if the informant and the investigating officer is the same person.

A three-judge bench in the case of Mohanlal vs State of Punjab had held that trial of cases under act will be vitiated if the informant and the investigating officer is the same person.

Read Also: Mallya’s review petition against contempt judgment dismissed by SC

However, the two-judge bench in the case of Mukesh Singh vs State differed on the view and had observed:

“Where the complainant himself had conducted investigation, such aspect of the matter can certainly be given due weightage while assessing the evidence on record but it would be completely different thing to say that the trial itself would be vitiated for such infraction.”

In Varinder Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh a three-judge bench held that the decision in the Mohanlal case decision will not be applicable to trials and appeals pending as on the date of that decision.

– India Legal Bureau