There can be no gainsaying that the more an investigation of a criminal case is done flawlessly in the most scientific and effective manner, the better the efforts can be made overall to improve vastly the investigation of criminal case. We all know that the manner in which the police investigation is done is very shoddy and which requires to be ameliorated on a very massive scale so that the chances of accused who is the real perpetrator of the crime of getting caught increases and similarly the chances of innocent not getting implicated also gets brighter. This can be made possible if the directions issued by the Allahabad High Court in the most learned, laudable, landmark and logical judgment titled Vinod And Another v. The State of U.P. in Criminal (Capital) Appeal No. – 5298 of 2015 vide its judgment and order dated 17.02.2017 issued a direction to the State to make the investigation of criminal case more effective, reliable and flawless. It is a no-brainer that this is the urgent crying need of the hour also!
Due to paucity of space, I would discuss only the most relevant part of this notable judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Shashi Kant for a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Bala Krishna Narayana and himself. It is pointed out most candidly in para 188 that, “Before parting with the case we would like to express Our deep concern and sorrow that the culprits of such a ghastly and brutal murder of three persons including one woman by brutally beheading them have gone scot free due to non availability of cogent, credible and reliable evidence as well as defective investigation and ill mannered prosecution of this case.”
To be sure, the Division Bench envisages in para 189 that, “It will also be appropriate to take notice of some important facts here about coming across a large number of cases in which complete justice between the parties could not be done due to defective investigation of the cases. Effecting a large number of cases by defective investigation is an indication of the fact that Investigating Officers of the cases are either not properly performing their duties and responsibilities sincerely or present provisions relating to the investigation are not effective or not properly enforced and there is no proper monitoring machinery to look after that all concerned provisions relating to fair and proper investigation of the criminal cases be adhered and enforced effectively.”
Most forthrightly, the Division Bench then also very rightly points out in para 190 that, “In most of the cases defects of investigation appear in the shape of late arrival of I.O. on the spot which causes disappearance of important evidence, improper preparation of site plan(s), inquest memos etc., in the inquest memos and other Police papers important details such as case crime number/signatures of I.O. etc. are not found, late recording of statements of the informant, victims and witnesses of the case and without furnishing any explanation/justification for late recording of the statements of the witnesses, non collection of important evidence relating to the case from the place of occurrence like blood stained and plain soil, cartridges (live and empty), blood stained weapon, hair, skin, clothes and finger prints etc. and if in some cases such items are being collected, they were not sent for their chemical/ballistic/DNA/Forensic examination which gives undue advantage to the accused persons, in most of the cases no effort is made for recording dying declaration of the seriously injured persons by the Magistrate, late medical examination of injured persons, late identification parades or conducting no identification parade at all, improper preservation and non preservation of recovered items in the Courts, tainted/designed investigation with intention to provide benefit to a party/person concerned, non compliance of various legal provisions, Rules and Regulations pertaining to ‘investigation’ etc.”
Frankly speaking, the Division Bench then observes in para 191 that, “Above referred defects are some common defects of investigation and are illustrative only and not exhaustive. We cannot sit silent and observe the situation as mute and helpless spectators.”
Most significantly, we see that the Division Bench then minces absolutely no words to hold in para 192 that, “ In view of the above, as our humble contribution, in order to make investigation of Criminal cases more effective, reliable and flawless We are passing following directions:
(I) All the Investigating Officers shall endeavor/make their best efforts to record the statements of informant, victim/injured and other important witnesses of fact, of the case as far as possible at the earliest and If it is not possible to do so within 24 hours from the registration of First Information Report, they shall furnish separate explanation for late recording of the statement of each witness alongwith statement of the witness concerned.
(II) With a view to curtail delay in recording the statements of informant/victim and witnesses, to curb the growing tendency of the witnesses to disown their earlier statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and turning hostile and to ensure their reliability, the Investigating Officer and State Government shall without fail inform the informant and all the witnesses that they may submit their evidence by e-mail/speed post or registered post on affidavit, sworn before the Oath Commissioner or Public Notary. If such affidavits are filed by the informant and the witnesses, same will be received, taken into consideration and needful will be done in respect of those by the I.O. In such cases, I.O. will also be at liberty to make further queries with the informant/witnesses if need arises to do so.
(III) Copies of statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. shall be simultaneously provided by the Investigating Officer to the first informant and witnesses with intimation that if they have any objection in respect of their statement or any discrepancy is found in the same, it shall be brought to the notice of the I.O. at the earliest, preferably within a week alongwith supporting evidence. An endorsement to this effect shall also be made by the I.O. in the case diary.
(IV) The above directions (I), (II) and (III) will also apply in respect of recording statements of accused and defence witnesses.
(V) All the Investigating Officers will collect each and every material and piece of evidence available at the place of incident and at the earliest and if not done so within 24 hours, they will furnish their explanation to that effect.
(VI) I.O. will prepare site plan of each and every place connected with the crime showing all the necessary details thereof like distance of witness/injured/aggressor etc.
(VII) As directed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka (supra), the prosecution must lay stress on scientific collection and analysis of evidence, particularly since there are enough methods of arriving at clear conclusions based on evidence gathered. In view of above, all relevant material and evidence collected from the site, shall be sent for Hand Writing Expert, Ballistic Expert, Forensic Science Laboratory, Finger Print Expert, D.N.A. Expert etc. as the case may be, by the I.O. for obtaining expert opinion/report in respect to such articles collected from the place of incident.
(VIII) Where ever it is possible and necessary the I.O. will collect ‘Call Details Record’ (C.D.R.) of Mobile Phones/Land Line phones of the victim/witnesses/accused as the case may be, footage of C.C.TV cameras available on the spot/near by locations and put phone numbers/mobile numbers of suspected persons likely to be involved in the offence concerned on surveillance, without any undue delay.
(IX) In all cases I.O. will adhere strict compliance of various provisions of Cr.P.C., Police Act and the Regulations related to the ‘investigation’.
(X) Superior Police Authorities shall develop effective monitoring system to ensure strict compliance of relevant rules, provisions and above directions by the Investigating Officers during investigation. In the cases of willful and intentional violation of the aforesaid by the Investigating Officer concerned same shall be cured at the earliest and appropriate action may be taken against the erring Investigating Officer.
(XI) The State Government shall ensure vide publicity of these directions by its publication in the news papers, electronic media and display on notice boards at the offices of superior Police Officers.
(XII) A copy of this order shall be sent to Chief Secretary and Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh for compliance of this order. They will submit their compliance report on affidavit within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order, to this Court.
(XIII) The Registrar General of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chairmen of all the District Legal Services Authority and the State Legal Services Authority for vide publicity of above directions.”
Be it noted, the Division Bench then concludes by holding in para 193 that, “Above directions will remain in force till the State Government frames/amends relevant rules/provisions in pursuance of above directions.”
To conclude, there cannot be even an iota of doubt that if these most commendable, cogent, courageous and creditworthy guidelines issued by the Allahabad High Court are implemented promptly, it will definitely go a very long way in improving vastly the investigation of criminal cases which is indispensable also for ensuring that the justice delivery mechanism functions in the best effective manner which serves the interest of both the accused and the victim in the best possible manner without discriminating against anyone in the most free, fair and forthright manner! No denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi