Published on: April 19, 15:06 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Sathyan v. State of Kerala 2023
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that a person who detected the commission of the offence, is the one who filed the report or investigated, such an investigation cannot be said to be bad in law. It is held that there is no reason to doubt the credibility of the informant and doubt the entire case of the prosecution solely on the ground that the informant has investigated the case. Solely on the basis of some apprehension or the doubts, the entire prosecution version cannot be discarded and the accused is not to be straightaway acquitted unless and until the accused is able to establish and prove the bias and the prejudice in the investigation.
16. Therefore, it can no longer be said to be res integra that the person receiving the information of the crime or detecting the occurrence thereof, can investigate the same. Questioning such investigation on the basis of bias or such like factor, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not amenable to a general unqualified rule that lends itself to uniform application.
17. The submission made by the learned counsel for the Appellant is that the fairness of the investigation was compromised since the person who detected the crime and the person who investigated, were one and the same. It was further submitted that the official witnesses being unreliable, independent witnesses are an indispensable requirement in the present case.
21. From the above discussion, it is clear that simply because the person who detected the commission of the offence, is the one who filed the report or investigated, such an investigation cannot be said to be bad in law. That particular submission therefore must necessarily be negatived. We also notice that, the judgment of the trial court categorically records that the person conducting the investigation was PW-4 and neither PW-1 nor PW-2, on whose testimonies the court has relied to hand down a verdict of conviction. On that ground also, the submission of the Appellant, must be negatived.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
