Examination Of Investigating Officer Crucial In Circumstantial Evidence Cases: Jharkhand High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction

In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has underscored the pivotal role of Investigating Officer in cases reliant on circumstantial evidence. The Court highlighted that failure to establish the evidence collected by the former Investigating Officer by the second Investigating Officer could prove fatal to the prosecution's case.

Justice Subhash Chand observed, “In this case, the first Investigating Officer, who investigated the whole of the case, has not been examined only the second Investigating Officer has been examined as P.W.-6, Kiren Surin, who filed the charge-sheet relying upon the evidence collected by the former Investigating Officer. In case of circumstantial evidence, the examination of the Investigating Officer becomes very important. More so, the evidence, which has been collected by the former Investigating Officer has not been proved by the 2nd Investigating Officer, as such, the same becomes fatal to the prosecution case.”

The above ruling came in a Criminal Appeal preferred by a murder convict who was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

As per prosecution, appellant used to torture complainant's daughter and when the latter took legal action against him, the appellant assaulted her, ultimately leading to her murder on December 31, 2007.

Before the High Court, appellant's counsel argued that prosecution case was merely circumstantial, lacking a clear link in the chain of evidence against the appellant. Additionally, the counsel pointed towards the absence of testimony from the Investigating Officer, suggesting that the appellant's conviction was founded on mere speculation.

The APP appearing for the State vehemently contested the appeal, asserting that the motive behind the incident was clearly outlined in the FIR and it was substantiated by compelling evidence.

The High Court re-evaluated the evidence - oral as well as documentary and acknowledged that while the prosecution successfully demonstrated the motive behind the incident and established the death of the informant's daughter as a result of homicide. However, it said there was lack of substantive evidence tying the appellant to the alleged offence.

Apart from establishing motive, there is no other circumstantial evidence against the appellant necessary to establish a conclusive chain of events, it said.

“None of the prosecution witness had seen the appellant committing murder of the daughter of the informant. During investigation, nothing incriminating circumstance was found by the Investigating Officer and relying upon the evidence collected by the former Investigating Officer, the second Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet, who has been examined as P.W.-6, Kiran Surin.”

“The prosecution case being based on the circumstantial evidence there being no link in the circumstances against the appellant-convict to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence even indicating that the appellant is the perpetrator of the commission of the murder of his wife,” the Court added.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, which outlined five crucial principles for proving cases based on circumstantial evidence. These principles stipulate that the circumstances leading to the conclusion of guilt must be firmly established, and the established facts should only support the hypothesis of the accused's guilt, excluding all other possibilities. The circumstances must be conclusive and eliminate any alternative hypotheses except the accused's guilt. Additionally, there must be a complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable doubts about the accused's innocence, indicating a high probability of their involvement in the act.

Moving ahead, the Court noted that the first Investigating Officer, who investigated the whole of the case, was not examined and only the second Investigating Officer was examined as P.W.-6, Kiren Surin, who filed the charge-sheet relying upon the evidence collected by the former Investigating Officer.

The Court placed reliance on the Apex Court's judgement in the case of Rajesh Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137 held that the evidence of the Investigating Officer is not indispensable, it requires contradiction and corroboration of other material witnesses as he is one, who links and presents them before the Court.

Thus, the Court opined, “the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is based on conjectures and surmises and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court being not based on any cogent evidence is found perverse, accordingly, the same needs interference and this Criminal Appeal deserves to be allowed.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the Criminal Appeal.

Case No.: Cr. Appeal (DB) No.344 of 2022

Case Title: Jumed Khan vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 53

Click Here To Read / Download Judgement