Taking a grim view of an improper, lackadaisical, and indifferent police investigation, the Patna High Court has set aside the life sentence of a man convicted of murder, observing that the Investigating Officer (IO) either lacked basic knowledge of investigative principles or deliberately withheld evidence to shield the accused.

The Court acquitted the appellant charged under Section 302/34 of the IPC after highlighting fatal investigative lapses—including the failure to conduct forensic ballistic testing on a recovered cartridge or verify the ownership of a mobile phone and motorcycle seized from the crime scene.

Highlighting the gross dereliction of duty which "deprived the courts of the best evidence," the High Court directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Bihar, to immediately initiate departmental proceedings against the erring officer.

The Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Rana Vikram Singh said, "Surprisingly enough, the ownership of the motorcycle was not asserted by the I.O. Had it been asserted at least this Court could have come to a conclusion as to whether any of the FIR named accused persons were present at the spot and left his motorcycle after the occurrence. Ownership of Samsung Mobile Phone was also not asserted. The empty cartridge was not sent to Forensic Laboratory to ascertain as to whether the said empty cartridge was used to commit murder of the son of the informant. These were primary duties of the I.O. for investigation of a case like this. It appears to us that either the I.O. did not know the basic principles of investigation or purposefully withheld the evidences which could have been brought during investigation to save the accused persons."

Advocate Amarnath Jha appeared for the Appellant, while APP Abhimanyu Sharma appeared for the State.

Brief Facts

The prosecution case arose from an incident where the informant and his deceased son were returning home on a motorcycle after attending the last rites of a relative. On their way, they were intercepted by a group of accused persons riding multiple motorcycles. Two of the accused held the informant at gunpoint under the threat of death, while the appellant, along with other co-accused, forcibly dragged the informant's son toward another co-accused standing a short distance away. Upon hearing that another vehicle was approaching the spot, the appellant, acting on the instructions of a co-accused, opened fire at the youth, pressing a pistol against his chest. The accused persons then fled the scene.

The victim, who sustained a grievous gunshot injury, succumbed to his wounds while being rushed to the hospital. Following the investigation, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.

Contentions of the Parties

The appellant challenged the judgment and order of conviction, contending that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt. It was argued that the evidence on record was ridden with material contradictions, the sole relying witness lacked credibility, and the physical evidence did not support the ocular testimony.

On the other hand, the prosecution supported the findings of the learned lower court, contending that a conviction could safely be sustained even on the solitary testimony of a reliable eye-witness, and that the medical evidence fully corroborated the cause of death.

Observations and Findings 

The High Court observed that the case presented a classic example of an improper, lackadaisical, and indifferent investigation that left material lacunae in the prosecution's case. The Court noted with concern that the informant, who was the author of the case and an alleged eye-witness to the actual occurrence, did not support the prosecution story on the dock and failed to utter a single word incriminating the appellant. Curiously, the prosecution failed to declare the informant hostile, leaving his exculpating examination-in-chief structurally intact.

The Court further found that the solitary eye-witness relied upon by the Trial Court did not qualify as a witness of "sterling character." A close scrutiny of his cross-examination revealed a serious discrepancy as to whether he actually witnessed the shooting or merely arrived at the spot after the victim had already sustained the gunshot injury.

Relying on settled judicial precedents, the Court held that a sterling witness must be of exceptionally high quality and calibre, whose version remains unassailable, consistent, and completely free from prevarication from the inception of the case until the trial.

The Court highlighted multiple investigative lapses that severely weakened the prosecution's case, noting that the seizure list witnesses were never confronted with their signatures, and one witness even deposed that his signature was taken on a blank sheet of paper.

"In view of the discrepancies pointed out, we are not in a position to hold that the P.W. 1 is a witness of sterling character and only on the basis of sole evidence of P.W. 1, the appellant could be convicted. There are series of lacunae in the prosecution case. During trial, the seizure list witness was not confronted with their signatures on the seizure list. Though they deposed but their signature on the seizure list was not marked exhibit. In his cross-examination, P.W. 5 stated that he put his signature on a blank paper under the instruction of the Investigating Officer", the Court observed.

Furthermore, the Investigating Officer failed to ascertain the ownership of the motorcycle and mobile phone seized from the crime scene, which could have conclusively established the presence of the accused persons. Crucially, the empty cartridge recovered from the spot was never sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for ballistic examination.

The Court held, "In our view, the process of the investigation by the I.O. of this case is a clear instance of dereliction of his duty. Therefore, we direct Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna to initiate departmental proceeding against the Investigating Officer, namely, Mahesh Kumar Rajak, who was posted as S.H.O. Medhapur Police Station on 22nd of July, 2014. Due to lackadaisical investigation, both the Trial Court and this Court are deprived of having best evidence against the real culprits of the incident."

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the conviction, allowed the appeal, and directed the Director General of Police to initiate departmental proceedings against the erring officer.

Cause Title: Meghnath Choupal v. State of Bihar [Criminal Appeal (DB) No.762 of 2018]

Appearances:

Appellant: Advocate Amarnath Jha

Respondent: APP Abhimanyu Sharma

Click here to read/download the Judgment

Tags: