KARAN SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA &Anr.

: SECURING ETHICS IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Criminal justice system is one of the balancing stone of the governing process of a state. The primary duty of the state is always to secure peace, law and order in the society and to deliver justice of all kinds to the poor and the needy. maintaining criminal justice is one of the foremost duties of all the state. Criminal justice is ensured through the proper and efficient working of the criminal justice system. The system of criminal justice constitutes judges, advocates, police officers etc. at its primary phase.

In the entire criminal justice process the police officers, particularly the investigating officers, play a vital role for its success. the entire process of criminal justice is made upon the investigation conducted by the investigating officer. So it is essential that the investigation must be ethical and impartial and should uphold genuinety in its entirety. In this case the hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed the unethical ways of criminal investigation by the police officer and explained the need for impartial and genuine investigation by the police.

Facts of the case

The prosecution case was that Karan Singh, the appellant, along with his friend named Kalia murdered Raj by throttling her. The motive for causing murder is the dispute which was existing between appellant and the deceased regarding non-payment of dues to the deceased from the appellant. Since the appellant had not paid money there was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant n 3rd and 4th of January 2005. Appellant had then threatened the deceased that he will kill her. In furtherance thereof Raj was murdered by the appellant and Kalia in the intervening night between 67.1.2005, strangulating her by putting a rope around the deceased's death. The incident was been witnessed by the mother and sister of the deceased. FIR was registered on 7.1.2005 based on the testimony made by the deceased's mother. The police recorded the statements of various persons including Maya Devi (PW.3) (deceased's mother), Birma (PW.4) (deceased's sister) alongwith other people. After completing the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the appellant. The co-accused Kalia, could not be apprehended and was declared as a proclaimed offender. The prosecution examined several witnesses including Maya Devi (PW.3), Birma (PW.4) and Omkar Singh(PW.8). The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 . After the conclusion of the trial, the learnedSessions Judge, Bhiwani, convicted and sentenced the appellant for imprisonment for life.

Issues Involved
The appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the following issue; 1. Whether the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was correct in affirming the sentence of life imprisonment against the appellants passed by the Additional Sessions Judge?

Judicial Approach
While dealing with the case the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the matters described in the arguments by both the parties. Court observed that none of the witnesses were properly crossexamined by the defense. The defense has failed to beneficially prove, with evidence, every theories forwarded by them. Court refused to grant benefit of any of these theories by the accused-appellant for want of evidence. The altercation happened between the accused appellant and the deceased was taken as a substantial evidence to prove motive for the murder. The court has formed and recorded the findings as there is no reason for the false implication of the appellant, who being the Sarpanch of the village was influential person and Omkar being an independent witness and there was no ground to disregard his testimony. The court further observed that there is adequate evidence on record to show that Rajesh Kumar, SI (PW.9), who had conducted the investigation at its initial stage, had not acted in accordance with law and had favoured the appellant. The investigating officer had not conducted the investigation properly and he was favourably inclined to the appellant and therefore spoiled the case. There were marks of dragging the deceased as mentioned in the inquest report, but the officer failed to depict the said marks. He also did not avail the service of the dog squad or the crime team of the forensic science laboratory. It was for this reason that the police authorities upon a complaint made, changed the Investigating Officer, who then conducted the investigation properly. The hon'ble supreme Court on this point further observed that the investigation into criminal offence must be free from any objectionable features which may give rise to an apprehension in the mind of the complainant or the accused, that investigation was not fair and may have been carried out with some ulterior motive. The investigating officer must not indulge in any kind of mischief, or cause harassment either to the complainant or the accused. His conduct must be entirely impartial and must dispel any suspicion regarding the genuineness of the investigation. Court rejected the appeal petition finding out that there was no merit in the application and the decision of the High court affirming the sentence by the lower court was correct. Before parting with the case court expressed its anguish against the state authorities for taking no action against an officer about whose professional etiquette certain serious findings were recorded by a trial court and the High Court. For this the court requested the learned Chief Secretary of the State of Haryana to examine the case, and proceed in accordance with law.

Similar decisions
Ram Bihari Yadev v. State of Bihar &Ors. AIR 1998 SC 1850 Supreme Court, in this case observed that if primacy is given to a designed or negligent investigation, or to the omissions or lapses created as a result of a faulty investigation, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice. Ram Bali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2004 SC2329 It was held that the Court must ensure that the defective investigation purposely carried out by the investigating officer, does not affect the credibility of the version of events given by the prosecution. Sonali Mukharjee v. Union of India (2010)15 SCC 25 Omissions made on the part of the investigating officer, where the prosecution succeeds in proving its case beyond any reasonable doubt by way of adducing evidence, particularly that of eye-witness and other witnesses, would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution, for the reason that every discrepancy present in the investigation does weigh upon the court to the extent that it necessarily results in the acquittal of the accused, unless it is proved that the investigation was held in such a manner that it is dubbed as a dishonest or guided investigation which will exonerate the accused. Such Similar views were also observed in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and Ors. , Mohd. Imran Khan v. State Government, Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. , Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal etc.

EVALUATION OF JUDGEMENT
Ethical conduct on the part of the investigating agency is absolutely essential and there must be no scope for any allegation of mala fides or bias. Words like personal liberty contained in Article 21 of the constitution of India provided for the widest amplitude, covering all kinds of rights particularly, the right to personal liberty of citizens of India, and a person cannot be deprived of the same without following the procedure prescribed and established by law. This way, the investigation agencies are guardians of the liberty of the innocent citizens. A duty is cast upon the investigating officer to ensure that an innocent person should not suffer unnecessarily from harassment of false implication. An investigation is not to be interfered with or influenced even by the courts. Therefore, the investigating agency must avoid entirely any kind of extraneous influence and investigation must be carried out enough alacrity and fairness irrespective of the status of the accused or the complainant. It is high time that the investigating officer as well as the prosecutor concerned are to be held accountable and appropriate actions are to be taken against them after affording opportunity of being heard to explain the circumstances lead to failure of the prosecution.

It is necessary to appreciate the Supreme Court for the strict stance it followed against the officer of gross misconduct in his profession in this case. It was well put by the Supreme Court in requesting state action against such an officer who committed such a misuse of his professional status and powers.