Any Act Of Commission/Omission Of The Investigating Officer Cannot Go To The Advantage Of The Accused: SC [Read Judgment]

Any act of commission/omission of the Investigating Officer cannot go to the advantage of the accused, the Supreme Court has observed while dismissing a Criminal Appeal.

The bench of Justice R. Banumathi, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hrishikesh Roy were considering the appeal filed by complainant and the state against the acquittal of murder accused by the Allahabad High Court.

The Court, in Jai Prakash vs. State of UP, was dealing with a contention that, even though the accused were arrested on the very next day, the weapons used by them were not recovered. Of course, the bench said, the case of the prosecution has to be examined de hors such omissions of the Investigating Officer like non-recovery of weapons etc. But material discrepancies in the prosecution evidence coupled with the unnaturalness of the prosecution case, non-recovery of weapons and empties raise serious doubts about the prosecution case, it added.

It was noted in the High Court judgment that there were also several lapses in the investigation of the case like non-recovery of "empties" fired from the guns on the deceased, non-recovery of firearms used by the accused etc. In this regard, the court said:

"It is well-settled that any omission on the part of the Investigating Officer cannot go against the prosecution case. If the Investigating Officer has deliberately omitted to do what he ought to have done in the interest of justice, it means that such acts or omissions of Investigating Officer should not be taken in favour of the accused. "

The prosecution case of course, cannot be doubted merely on the ground of non-recovery of weapons and other piece of evidence..Any act of commission/omission of the Investigating Officer cannot go to the advantage of the accused. But in a case of this nature where FIR is said to have been registered within half an hour of the occurrence and the investigation also commenced then and there, we find no reason as to why the "empties" and "bursts" from the scene of occurrence were not recovered."

While upholding the acquittal, the bench observed that the High Court has analysed entire evidence and recorded its finding as to how the trial court has gone wrong in not appreciating the material inconsistencies in the prosecution case and thus did its duty to consider and appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution and arrive at an independent conclusion.  

Click here to Read/Download Judgment