Rajasthan High Court Directs Action Against Investigating Officer For Inserting Inaccurate, 'Imaginary' Facts In Dowry Death Case

The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni was hearing a bail application by a husband who was locked in prison after being booked in the case of dowry death. It was the case of the applicant that his wife's death was attributable to a fall from the stairs as was mentioned in the site plan as well as the description memo that led to a cardiac arrest. Hence, there was no concrete evidence against him for showing direct nexus between him and the crime or for making out the ingredients of the offence.

Not agreeing with the arguments put forth by the counsel for the applicant, the Court highlighted that the fact that the wife had died owing to a slip from the staircase did not come up in any of the witness statements recorded under Section 161, CrPC. The Court opined that the fact seemed to be an imagination or assumption of the IO who was not an eye-witness to the incident and hence could not have narrated such observation in the site plan. Based on this observation, the Court held that it prima facie appeared that the fact was inserted in the file by the IO beyond the record to weaken the case of the complainant and to aid the accused.

In this background, the Court rejected the bail application looking at the nature and gravity of the accusation. The Court further highlighted the inaccuracies in the investigation and observed that such assumptions and inaccuracies significantly affect the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, the Court directed the order to be sent to the DG and the Superintendent of Police for information and necessary action.

“It was imperative on the part of the Investigating Officer that investigation of an offence such as dowry-death maintains a high level of accuracy and candidness. I.O. was also an integral part of prosecution. Therefore, copy of the order be sent to the DG Police Rajasthan and S.P. concerned for information and necessary action.”

Title: Prabhu Ram v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 167