Investigating Officer Not To Indulge In Any Act That Tacitly Creates An Advantage In Favour Of The Accused: Bombay High Court
While hearing a petition filed by the father of a woman killed in a motor accident alleged to involve a Sub-Inspector of Police, the Bombay High Court made some crucial remarks about the how investigating officers were to investigate such offences. The Bench of Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and B. U. Debadwar emphasized that an Investigating Officer required to investigate the crime...
While hearing a petition filed by the father of a woman killed in a motor accident alleged to involve a Sub-Inspector of Police, the Bombay High Court made some crucial remarks about the how investigating officers were to investigate such offences.
The Bench of Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and B. U. Debadwar emphasized that an Investigating Officer required to investigate the crime in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure/applicable procedure to the best of his ability.
Underscoring that an investigating officer was not to leave loopholes so as to advantage the accused, the Court stated,
"We have no hesitation in observing that an investigating officer is supposed to investigate the crime in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure / the procedure applicable and to the best of his ability. He is not supposed to indulge in any such act during investigation, which would have a semblance or a flavour of the I.O. deliberately leaving loopholes in the investigation, so as to tacitly create an advantage in favour of the accused."
In the case at hand, the petitioner asserted that his daughter was intentionally killed by the sub-inspector of police, and that investigating officers tried to cover the matter up.
Pointing to instances from the investigation as submitted by the petitioner, the Court found that the Investigating Officer seriously failed in properly investigating into the crime. One glaring instance of the lapses were that the police did not prepare a seizure panchnama of the car that caused the accident, the Court noted.
The Court dismissed the submission that the investigating officer inadvertently left loopholes.
"The learned public prosecutor submits that such mistakes may have occurred inadvertently. We cannot accept such contention for the reason that an experienced I.O. would never commit such acts inadvertently."
The Court also recorded the petitioner's contention that the investigating officer shielded the accused and that they were stationed in the same police officer.
In this respect, the Court noted that the accused police officer ought to have been transferred as soon as his culpability was discovered. Instead, he continued in the office until he was trapped in an anti-corruption bribery case.
Commending the Commissioner of Police for taking action and instituting a proper inquiry into the investigation, the Court stated that he acted without fear or favour.
However, the Public Prosecutor's submission that Investigating Officer's increments for one year would be halted did not find favour with the Bench. Opining that the same was an eyewash, the Court instead directed that a showcause notice and chargesheet for a Departmental Inquiry be served on the Investigating Officer.
"The Court cannot be a silent spectator and close it's eyes or turn a Nelson's eye, as if it is helpless, in such a case. We would be failing in our duty, if we blink at such a conduct of a police officer," it was said.
Calling for the maximum possible punishment against the officer if he was found guilty, the matter was disposed.
The other prayers of the petitioner, including the plea for the probe to be transferred to another investigating agency, were left for consideration of the trial court.
Advocate Saeed S. Shaikh argued the petitioner's case. Public Prosecutors DR Kale and KS Patil appeared for the State.