Accused Cannot Claim Acquittal On Ground Of Faulty Investigation : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court (today January 06) held that the accused cannot claim acquittal solely on grounds of faulty investigation. It explained that defective investigation does not automatically benefit the accused persons and Courts will have to consider the rest of the evidence relied on by the prosecution.

“Hence, the principle of law is crystal clear that on the account of defective investigation the benefit will not inure to the accused persons on that ground alone. It is well within the domain of the courts to consider the rest of the evidence which the prosecution has gathered such as statement of the eyewitnesses, medical report etc. It has been a consistent stand of this court that the accused cannot claim acquittal on the ground of faulty investigation done by the prosecuting agency.,'' held Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale.

The brief factual matrix of the case was that a hartal was called by the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS). The same led to violent clashes between the members of RSS and the Communist Party of India (M). This resulted in the death of two people. The accused persons were found guilty by the trial court of several charges under the Indian Penal Code including murder. However, as the matter reached the High Court, some accused were acquitted and the conviction of the rest was confirmed. It is the later set of accused that filed this present appeal challenging their conviction.

At the outset, the Court took note of a long-standing rivalry between both groups. Addressing the appellant's contention of contradictions found in prosecution witnesses' testimonies, the Court said that there were minor variations. Instead, the Court found the testimonies to be truthful and trustworthy. To bolster, the Court referred to the recent case of Birbal Nath vs State of Rajasthan, wherein it was held that mere variation in two statements would not be enough to discredit a witness.

The Court also applied the principle of “Noscitur a sociis” according to which the meaning of a word can be determined by the context of the sentence.

“Though this principle Is used for interpretation of words in a statute, the inherent principle can very well be applied to the facts of the present case which have be seen in the context of the entire set of events that had transpired that night.,” the Court said.

Another important principle discussed by the Court was “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus”, which means false in one thing, false in everything. However, it highlighted that this principle is not a rule of evidence and only because of some minor contradictions, rest of the testimony cannot be discarded. Reliance was placed on Ram Vijay Singh Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh.

“As we have already mentioned above, the principle of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' does not apply to the Indian criminal jurisprudence and only because there are some contradictions which in the opinion of this Court are not even that material, the entire story of the prosecution cannot be discarded as false. It is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff.”

“Thus in our opinion, merely because the dead body of Sujeesh was found at a place little away from the place of body of other victim Sunil, it cannot be the sole and decisive factor to discard the entire case of prosecution.''

Moving forward, even though the Court observed that the investigation had not taken place in a proper and disciplined manner, it denied any relief to be given to the accused based on it. To strengthen its findings, the Court referred to the decision in Paras Yadav & ors. vs. State of Bihar, 1999 (2) SCC 126, wherein it held:

“Para 8 - ..the lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer should not be taken in favour of the accused, may be that such lapse is committed designedly or because of negligence. Hence, the prosecution evidence is required to be examined de hors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not.”

Before parting, the Court also stated that even if the eyewitnesses were assumed to be interested witnesses, there was no inconsistency in their statements. Thus, it did not raise any reasonable suspicion with regard to their evidence.

“Their versions about seeing and hearing the appellants inflicting injuries on the bodies of the deceased Sunil and Sujeesh are in harmony with each other.,” the Court said.

Based on the above observations, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned order of the High Court.

Case Name: EDAKKANDI DINESHAN @ P. DINESHAN & ORS v. STATE OF KERELA., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 118 OF 2013

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 25

Click here to read the judgment