Telangana High Court: Instituting A Performance Evaluation System That Rates Efficiency Of Investigating Officers Will Encourage Greater Diligence

The Telangana High Court has suggested that instituting a performance evaluation system that rates the efficiency and effectiveness of the Investigating Officers (IOs) will encourage greater diligence and professionalism.

The Court was deciding a Criminal Appeal filed against the Judgment of conviction passed by the Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases Relating to Atrocities Against Women.

A Division Bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice N. Tukaramji observed, “When an officer is entrusted with a case he or she should be accountable for the thoroughness and quality of the investigation conducted. Instituting a performance evaluation system that rates the efficiency and effectiveness of the investigating officers based on adherence to produce and the outcomes in the cases they handle, will encourage greater diligence and professionalism. Moreover linking such performance assessments to the officers’ career progression and opportunities for advancement would motivate the officers to prioritize investigative excellence.”

The Bench added that such an approach encourages specialization, fosters a culture of accountability and ensures that investigations are conducted with the highest standards of integrity and competence.

Advocate E. Uma Maheshwar Rao appeared for the Appellant/Accused while Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) M. Ramachandra Reddy appeared for the Respondent/State.

Factual Background

The Trial Court had found the Appellant-accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. He was also found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year along with a fine of Rs. 100/-. As per the prosecution case, a Complaint was filed by a woman (victim) stating that she resided with her divorced mother. The Appellant (Colonel) who was serving as an Administrative Officer at DRDO, was reportedly a close friend of the victim’s mother. He was a regular visitor to their residence since May 2016 and he allegedly developed a friendly relationship with the victim and her brother, showing particular interest in the victim.

The accused used to allegedly take her out in his BMW Car and Harley Davidson motorcycle by gaining her mother’s trust. In January 2017, when her mother went on an official tour, she asked the accused to stay at their house to look after her children under his care, protection, and guardianship. It was alleged that the accused stayed at their house at night and during midnight he entered the victim’s room and coerced her into sexual relation. He also allegedly repeated the same the following morning. Thereafter, he allegedly threatened the victim with dire consequences against revealing this to anyone. Later, he also promised to marry her and the victim did not disclose the offence to any person. Somewhere in April 2017, she went to her father’s house. She informed her father about missing her monthly periods and then the medical examination by the Medical Laboratory detected that she was carrying 12 weeks of pregnancy. Resultantly, the Complaint was lodged.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “… this Bench finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt, with material inconsistencies in key witness testimonies and overlooked documentary evidence that supports the appellant's case. Following the principles laid down in various Supreme Court judgments regarding the standard of proof required in criminal cases, we find that the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court cannot be sustained.”

The Court remarked that the investigation is bedrock of the criminal justice administration and the fact finding and collection of evidentiary materials by the investigating agency makes this stage imperative and imposes a greater obligation on the investigating agency in meeting the fundamental right of every citizen to have fair investigation.

“Although, we have adjudicated the appeal and parting with the judgment, this Bench regrets to note the grand failure of the investigation in the present case”, it further remarked.

The Court observed that in either case, the greatest victim is the criminal justice administration and the aftermath may result in wrongful conviction of the innocent or letting the real culprits go scot-free, which transforms the actual perpetrator into an ongoing threat.

“Additionally, flawed investigation leads to prolonged trial, retrials, appeal and many more legal challenges resulting in wastage of resources, delays in the justice delivery, in turn affects citizen’s faith in the criminal justice system”, it added.

The Court was of the opinion that a manufactured criminal case not only undermines justice administration, but also actively destroys the individual’s dignity infringes upon rights and erodes opportunities, often without accountability for those responsible for the false accusations.

“To prevent such far-reaching consequences, the investigation agency must abandon the tunnel vision approach, where prematurely centers on the projected suspect without adequately exploring the other relevant aspects and must conduct proceedings strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedures of investigation. Furthermore, it is imperative that the investigating agency maintains an open and unbiased approach throughout the inquiry ensuring that all potential evidence and witnesses are thoroughly examined”, it emphasised.

The Court also said that any premature conclusions or procedural lapses could jeopardize the integrity of the case and potentially lead to miscarriage of justice and thus, the investigating agency shall act with caution to prevent abuse and must be resolute in defending individual rights and preserving the integrity of investigation and administrative of justice.

“… maintaining a dedicated team with sufficient number of trained and designated personnel specifically for conducting investigations on defined fields and clearly fixing responsibility on the investigating officer assigned to a case is crucial”, it noted.

Furthermore, the Court suggested that regular and rigorous training programs tailored to investigative skills, forensic techniques and legal procedures must be institutionalized and continuous professional development will equip officers to handle complex cases more effectively and adapt to evolving challenges in the criminal investigations.

“Finally, establishing an independent supervising mechanism to monitor investigation quality and provide constructive feedback can further enhance the transparency and public confidence in the criminal justice system. … This Bench is of the considered view that these measures would significantly enhance standards and outcomes of police investigations”, it added.

The Court was of the view that the appropriate governments shall consider recognizing the investigating institutions with defined goals, for securing the fundamental rights of the citizen for fair, impartial and prompt investigations for achieving more effective and just legal system.

“We say this to bring these aspects to attention with an expectation of proactive engagement and affirmative and decisive action from all involved in the investigating agencies”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal, acquitted the accused, and suggested some measures.

Cause Title- Colonel Rishi Sharma v. The State of Telangana (Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.946 of 2024)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates E. Uma Maheshwar Rao, Enuganti Sudhanshu, Nikhil Chainani, and Anishka Vaishnav.

Respondent: APP M. Ramachandra Reddy

Click here to read/download the Judgment