Open Access Research Article
DISCUSS THE PROCESS OF INVESTIGATION. (SECTION 154–173) BY: VIDUSHI RASTOGI
Published Paper
Article Details
DISCUSS THE PROCESS OF INVESTIGATION.
(SECTION 154–173)
SUBMITTED BY: VIDUSHI RASTOGI
CONTACT NUMBER: 9472973310
NMIMS KIRIT P MEHTA SCHOOL OF
LAW MUMBAI
TY BBA.LLB (HONS.)
Abbreviations
|
§
|
Section
|
|
¶
|
Paragraph
|
|
AC
|
Appeal Cases
|
|
AIR
|
All India Reporter
|
|
HC
|
High Court
|
|
ILR
|
Indian Law Review
|
|
CS
|
Charge Sheet
|
|
CA
|
Court of Appeal
|
|
CC
|
Criminal Case
|
|
MUM
|
Mumbai
|
|
Ltd.
|
Limited
|
|
MAH.
|
Maharashtra
|
|
LR
|
Law Reports
|
Abstract
Purpose - The purpose
of this paper is to understand and research about the relevant process of investigation that is explained from
section 154 to 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Research Implication – This paper offers a
basic explanation of the function of the investigative process
as described in Section
154-173 of the 1973 Code of Criminal
Procedure. Other approaches
may be used in future study, and this work may have used secondary research,
which relied on data that was
previously available.
Findings - This research will attempt to evaluate
and assess the present scenario
the investigation process
elaborated in CRPC. According to this the goal is to find the perpetrator and bring him to trial so
that he may be punished
in accordance with the Code's
requirements.
Originality/Value – According
to Section 155(2) of the Code, the police officer must get a warrant in non-cognizable situations
before conducting an inquiry. The term "investigation" has a meaning under Section 2(h) of the
Code. The police's right to acquire information and their investigation authorities are covered in Chapter XII of the Code (Sections
154 to 176).
Keywords – Investigation Process,
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Section 154-173.
Introduction
Criminal process includes an essential component called an investigation.
"Investigation" is the
first action taken when a crime is committed or after a police officer receives
information regarding the conduct of
an offence. The goal is to locate the perpetrator and bring him to justice
so that he may
be punished in accordance with the Code's
requirements. Police officers
have the authority to investigate matters that are cognizable under
Section 156 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. In non-cognizable instances, the police officer must acquire a
warrant according to Section 155(2)
of the Code in order to conduct an investigation. Section 2(h) of the Code provides a definition for the
word "investigation." The Code's Chapter XII (Sections 154 to 176) deals with the police's
access to information and their investigative authority.
Meaning and Definition
According to Section 2(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a
"investigation" is any activity carried
out in accordance with this Code by a police officer or by a person (other than
a magistrate) who has been given
authority in this respect by a magistrate for the purpose of obtaining
evidence.
An inquiry into an offence
entail:
1. moving
towards the location
2. determining the case's facts and circumstances.
3. The culprit
is found and taken into custody.
4. Gathering
evidence may include interviewing the interested parties and having
their statements put in writing.
5. Searching for and taking possession of items that are deemed vital
forming a judgement
on whether a matter merits trial, and then
taking the appropriate action.
Section
2(C) of the Code, which specifies the cognizable offence, permits a police
officer to conduct an arrest without
a warrant. The state has the option to prosecute this major public wrong given the severity of the offence.
Three years or more in jail and a fine may be imposed as punishment. Example:
Murder, rape, and dower.
Section 2 (l) of the Code defines non-cognizable offences
and cases, which the police are not permitted
to make arrests in without a warrant. The prosecution is being done at the
parties' initiative since the offence
is less severe in nature. The maximum penalty is a three-year jail sentence.
Assault, forgery, defamation, etc. are some
examples.
Research Methodology
In order to
determine the significant components of fundamental human knowledge and skills as well as the main orientations of a
required strategy, this study started with a comprehensive assessment of the literature. This paper
used secondary research, which means it relied on previously collected information.
Research Objective
·
To analyse
the procedure of Investigation according to code of criminal
procedure.
·
To discuss the procedure when Investigation cannot be
completed within 24 hours.
·
To analyse the Procedure
to be followed on completion of Investigation (s.169-s.173)
Research Questions
1. What is the process
of Investigation according to code of criminal procedure?
2. Discuss the procedure when investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours?
3. What is the procedure to be followed on completion of Investigation (s.169-s.173)?
Literature Review
1.
Mughal, J. R. D., &
Ahmad, M. (2012) Pin their paper Procedure for Investigation Where Cognizable Offence Suspected
highlighted that Action to do when a crime is
suspected. If an officer in charge of a police station has reason to believe that an offence
has been committed for which he is authorised under Section 156 to
investigate based on information
received or in any other way, He must transmit a report of the incident right away to a magistrate who has the authority to file charges
based on a police report.
He must appear in person or appoint one of his subordinate officials of
at least the appropriate level as directed
by the Provincial Government in a general
or specific order. Goutam, S. (2010) In his paper Inquest Procedure
in Judicial Investigation in India. Goutam,
Swapneshwar, Inquest procedure in judicial investigation in India: With Reference
to the Proposed New Corner Act highlighted the extensive range of inquest practises used in Indian court investigations, with a focus on the Criminal Process
Code. The new Corner Act's
value in bringing consistency and filling the gap by extending the reach of Sections 174 and 176 of the
CRPC, is highlighted and examined in this paper.
Findings
Information to the Police
Officer
The timing of
information disclosure as a cognizable offence is covered under Section 154 of the code. The officer in charge of the
police station must either get the information from the informant in writing or must put it in writing themselves. The
"Initial Information Report," which must be read over to and signed by the informant, is written information. When a woman makes
a statement on an alleged
crime that violates
Sections 326-A, 326-B,
354, 354-A to 354- D, 376, 376-A to 376-E, or 509 IPC, the
woman police officer is required to document the woman's statement. If the police officer has cause to believe that a cognizable offence has been committed, he or she must launch an
inquiry as soon as the information is received.
Power of Police to Investigate
If the offence is of a cognizable type, Section 156 of the code gives a police station's commanding officer
the authority to conduct an investigation in a case within his geographical jurisdiction without the magistrate's
approval. Under the directives of the magistrate with authority under Section 190, the officer may also launch an inquiry.
Cases consisting of both Cognizable and Non-
Cognizable Offences
When two or more offences are committed in the same case, at least one of
them must be a cognizable offence
while the others are not, as stated in Section 155(4). The investigating officer shall be given all the rights and
power he has when conducting an inquiry into a
cognizable crime, and the case as a whole must be handled as a cognizable offence.[1]
Procedure of Investigation
The process
of investigation that the police must follow in order
to gather evidence
is outlined in Section 157 of the Code. The
investigation into a cognizable case begins when a police officer in charge of a police station has
reason to suspect that a cognizable crime has been committed based on the FIR or any additional information
subsequently obtained. It mandates that the Magistrate get quick notification of the FIR. The officer must then go personally to the scene to investigate the facts and
circumstances, or he must assign one of his subordinate officers to do so. If necessary, steps must be made to find and apprehend the suspect.
When a police officer receives
non-serious information, there
is no requirement for the officer
to personally investigate the situation or to assign a subordinate officer to do so. Also, he must
not look into a matter if there are not enough reasons
to do so.. Moreover, it must explain
in its report why it did not follow this section's standards and
advise the informant that it would not conduct its own
investigation into the situation.
He will then transmit this report to the magistrate with the authority to
file charges for this offence.[2]
Sending
a Report to the Magistrate (Section 158)
A document
known as the police report is delivered to the magistrate. To inform the Magistrate that a certain matter is being looked
into by a police officer, it was provided by the higher police officer. The major goal of submitting a report is to
allow the Magistrate the ability to oversee the inquiry and issue directives as needed
in accordance with Section 159 of the Code.
The Magistrate should
get the report as soon as possible. It was decided
in Swati Ram v. State of
Rajasthan that a simple delay in providing the report did not nullify the
prosecution's case entirely.
The police are required to provide the magistrate with different reports
at various phases
of an investigation. These are the reports:
According to Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the official in
charge of the police station must provide
a preliminary report to the magistrate.
According to Section 168 of the CrPC, a report has to be submitted to the officer in charge of the
police station.
A final report must be provided to the magistrate
upon the conclusion
of the inquiry, under Section
173 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Order of Investigation by the Magistrate
According to
Section 159, the Magistrate has the authority to order an investigation,
conduct the investigation personally,
or instruct a subordinate Magistrate to undertake a preliminary investigation if he determines it is required
after receiving the report. Moreover, the Magistrate lacks
the authority to halt an investigation after it has begun, as stated by the Supreme
Court.
Attendance of Witnesses
According to Section 160, the investigating police officer has the
authority to request the presence of any individual as a witness
who is familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case.
In accordance with the aforementioned clause, no male or female
under the age of fifteen
years may be compelled to attend any location other than their place of
residence. The State Government must
establish guidelines for the reimbursement of reasonable costs that people spend while travelling outside of their home.
Examination of Witnesses
Any police officer overseeing the investigation, or any other officer
complying with a request from an
officer in charge, is permitted and obligated to interrogate a witness or other
person with knowledge of the specifics of the case. Police are granted the right to interview witnesses under Section 161 of the Code. Witness testimony is crucial
because it has the power to prove someone
guilty or innocent. The subjects of an investigation are expected and required
to honestly respond to any inquiries
made about such matters. They are not required to honestly respond to inquiries that might result in a criminal
or other charge. The police officer conducting the inquiry must limit the
number of statements made by the subject during the examination. If this occurs, he must maintain a separate record
of it. While he is not required to put the assertions in writing, doing so is desirable.
Statements to the
Police not to be Signed
He is not
required to sign the witness testimonies provided throughout the examination.
Both should not be utilised
in any investigation or trial. The witness's words may only be used against
him in court, never in support
of him. If the witness
is from the prosecution's side, the accused may utilise
any element of his testimony that is shown to be false, and the prosecution may only use such testimony with the court's
approval. In other words, claims made in accordance with Section 161 may be used to refute
him.
Nevertheless, the following situations are an exception to the rule in
the aforementioned section: where a
statement is covered by Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act or when a statement
has an impact on Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Recording of Confessions and Statements
Regardless of
whether he has jurisdiction over the case, Section 164 grants any magistrate— marshal or judicial— the authority to
document any confession or statement given to him throughout the inquiry. But a police officer who has temporarily
been given magistrate-like powers is
not authorised to record the same. Before recording the statement, the
magistrate must inform the witness
that he is not obligated to provide it and that the testimony may be used against him in court. The magistrate
has to confirm that the confession is being made willingly. If the subject refuses to provide a statement at any
point before the confession is recorded, the Magistrate cannot approve the
subject's detention in police custody.
Recording of Confession
When Magistrate has no Jurisdiction
Where a magistrate does not have
the authority to do
so, he or she must convey any statements or confessions to the appropriate magistrate who will conduct the trial or conduct the necessary investigation.
Admissibility of Evidence
Without being
legally proven, the confession recorded under section 164 may be used as material evidence. Such a confession's record is accepted
as proof. The whole of the confession must be documented. It must be carefully considered by the
Court with other evidence. All of it might be rejected
by the court. Convictions based
on confessions that were determined to be invalid
could not stand.
Non-confessional utterances that are recorded
in accordance with section 164 are not regarded as being strong evidence. But, if the
person who made the statement is called as a witness in the case, it may be possible to use his earlier statement to
contradict his testimony in court under sections 145 and 157 of the
Evidence Act.
It was decided in Balak Ram v. The
State of U.P. that a witness' testimony cannot be disregarded only because it was recorded under section 164.
Approaching their evidence with care is necessary.
Search by Police Officer
According to Section 165 of the Code, a police officer
has the authority to conduct a search of any
location he has cause to suspect may contain information relevant to the
investigation he is authorised to conduct.
Section 93(1) of the Code specifies the criteria for granting a search
warrant. The state government has recommended a notebook for this purpose,
and it is mandatory that the search be recorded in it.
Procedure of Search
Prior to
conducting the search in person, a police officer must first put his
justifications, the location, and the
item to be searched in writing. The police officer may, in writing, ask his subordinate officer to undertake the search if he is unable to do so himself. He must specify
the location and object
to be looked for. After that, the subordinate officer may carry out the search based on the written directive that was
provided to him. The police shall keep a record of the search and transmit a report to the closest magistrate, who may
then provide it, free of charge, to the owner or occupant of the location inspected upon request.
When
Investigation is to be
Done Outside India
When the lead
investigator or any of his superiors appears to have reason to believe that necessary proof may be available in a location or country, the court shall
send a letter of request
to the authority of that location asking
to speak verbally
with the person
who is presumed to be knowledgeable
about the specifics and circumstances surrounding the incident and directing him to produce
all the required documents in his custody
related to the matter being
examined. In Section
166, the provision is mentioned.
Procedure when Investigation cannot
be Completed
within 24 Hours
The process when an inquiry
cannot be finished
in 24 hours is covered
in Section 167. The aim of
this paragraph is to guarantee liberal democracy. The goal is to shield the
suspect from the police's abuses and provide
the magistrate the chance to determine whether
to keep the suspect in custody longer.
It also aims to speed up the investigation and prevent imprisonment without charge or
trial. The accused or arrested
individual may not be held for more than 24 hours in order to serve
this objective. The following situations trigger Section 167:
1. when the suspect is taken into custody by a police
officer after being apprehended without
a warrant.
2. More than 24 hours needed for an investigation.
3. There are reasons to think
that the allegations or information against
him are true.
4. The accused is sent for remand before the Magistrate by the official in charge of a police
station or the investigating officer who is not below the level of sub-inspector.
The magistrate who receives the accused may approve the accused's detention
in such custody for a period
of time not to exceed 15 days. The accused will be sent on to the magistrate
with jurisdiction to try the matter
if the magistrate lacks that authority and believes that additional custody
is unwarranted.
If the Magistrate has good cause and grounds to think it is necessary, he
must allow the accused's detention
(but not in police custody). Nevertheless, the Magistrate is not permitted to impose
a detention order that calls for more time
than:
·
90 days if the defendant is charged with a crime
carrying a minimum sentence of 10 years in prison and a maximum
sentence of life in prison or execution.
·
When accused of any other offence, 60 days. And if he
is able to provide sureties, he will be freed on bail at the
end of the 60 or 90 days, whichever
comes first.
This time frame must be determined
starting from the date of custody, not the day of arrest.
The Executive
Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate, who has been granted temporary access to the Judicial Magistrate's
powers, shall preside in the Judicial Magistrate's absence. Detention for a time period of no more
than seven days must be ordered by the Executive Magistrate. The accused will be given to the appropriate
Magistrate if further custody is necessary.
If a
magistrate other than the Chief Judicial Magistrate issues the order, that
magistrate is obligated to provide
the Chief Judicial Magistrate a copy of the order and a rationale for the decision.
If an
investigation in a summons case is not finished within six months, the
magistrate must issue an order to halt it, unless
he has good cause to think that further inquiry
is needed in the
interest of justice. If a request to overturn a magistrate's order to halt an investigation is brought to a sessions judge, the sessions judge
is authorised under Section 167(6) to revoke the magistrate's decision under paragraph 5 if there are good reasons to do so.
Procedure to be followed on
completion of Investigation (s.169-s.173) Upon the
conclusion of the investigation, the following steps must be taken: Release
of accused when evidence is
deficient The police
officer must release the accused upon his execution of a bond, with or without sureties, and may order him to appear
before the magistrate as necessary where there is insufficient evidence and adequate grounds
to support sending
the accused to the Magistrate.
Cases to be sent to Magistrate when evidence sufficient
The magistrate may proclaim an offence committed, try the offender, or
commit him to jail awaiting trial if
the police officer has sufficient evidence and reasonable grounds to do so. If the offence is bailable, security will be
given and the accused will be released on bail with the requirement that he only appear before the magistrate as
needed and that he frequently appear in court.
Diary of proceedings in an investigation (section 172)
This section
discusses the information that must be kept in a case diary that is required of every police investigator. The purpose of this
part is to make it possible for the magistrate to understand the daily information provided by a police officer
who was looking into the case. Witnesses' oral depositions shouldn't
be
noted in this case diary. This journal may be consulted
during a trial
or investigation—not as evidence, but rather to help the judge handle the matter.
Report of police on completion
of the investigation
Upon the
conclusion of the inquiry, a police officer must submit their final report to
the magistrate in accordance with
Section 173. Often, this report is referred to as a "Challan" or "Chargesheet."
The report must be provided
to the Magistrate by the higher officer in cases where he has been nominated by the State
government. Further inquiry
should be directed
to the officer in charge
of the police station
while the Magistrate's
directives are still in effect.
The police officer must ask the
magistrate to exclude a portion of the statement in the report he provided
if, in his opinion, it is irrelevant. However, even after the report has been
sent to the magistrate, more investigation may still be conducted.
Power to Summon Persons
This clause
gives the police the authority to call witnesses at the inquest
to describe the wounds the investigating officer discovered on
the dead person's body. Yet, it is not at all required for him to record
the witness testimony
or get their signatures on the inquest
report. The individual being questioned during
an inquest is required to honestly respond
to all questions, except any that
might be used against him. Section 179 of the IPC makes it unlawful to refuse
to respond to inquiries, while
Section 193 of the IPC makes it unlawful to provide a false response on purpose. While the inquest report is not
actual evidence, it might be used to support the testimony of the police officer who wrote it.
Case Analysis
The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which establishes the guidelines for the investigation of criminal offences,
governs the investigative process in India. The following are some
noteworthy Indian case laws pertaining to the inquiry
process:
1. State of
West Bengal v. D.K. Basu, 1997: This precedent-setting case established a set of rules for the police to adhere to while making arrests and holding suspects. The Court ruled that the right to be treated
humanely while being investigated is part of the right to life and liberty protected by the Indian Constitution. The rules provide
that the police
must tell an arrested individual of the circumstances leading up to the
arrest, the right to legal representation, and the need for a medical
examination after the arrest.
Facts:
Mr. Dilip Kumar Basu, the executive
chairman of a non-political organisation called Legal Aid Services in West Bengal, sent a letter
to the then Chief Justice of India while keeping in mind the startling increase
in fatalities while
in custody in the country.
The letter, dated
August 26th, 1986, made reference to certain items on
custodial fatalities in a newspaper, namely the Telegraph Newspaper. In the letter, Mr. Basu asked that it be
treated as a writ petition under the
Public Interest Litigation Act.
As the letter was being examined, Mr. Ashok Kumar Johri entered the
picture with a letter in which he
restated the issue and claimed that Mahesh Bihari, of Pilkhana, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, died in custody. The Supreme
Court of India regarded this letter together with the letter from Mr. Basu as a writ petition. The Law Commission of
India received notifications from the
Court asking the creation of adequate measures to resolve the problem within
two months. The Court also sent notices to the
state governments over the
same.
The state governments of Himachal Pradesh, West Bengal, Assam, Orissa,
Haryana, Tamil Nadu, and Meghalaya
then submitted a number of affidavits to the Supreme Court. Dr. A. M. Singhvi, who served as the lead attorney
for the state governments, was also named by the Supreme Court as an amicus
curia.
Judgement:
The Supreme
Court cited the decision in Neelabati
Behra v. State of Orissa[2], which determined
that torture in any form and cruel or inhumane treatment of those who had been detained
violated their constitutional rights, particularly Article
21. Only in line with the terms
of the law might persons have their fundamental rights restricted. The
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Government case revealed the same
point of view.
The Supreme Court also referred to the case of Joginder
Kumar v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, where it was determined that police personnel
were making arrests without warrants despite the fact that procedural guidelines for criminal arrests
had previously been established. Arrests
shouldn't be commonplace; just because a police officer
is authorised by law to make an arrest does not mean that he may make
an arrest without justification.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court established the following rules for
police to adhere to while making arrests and keeping people in custody:
1)
Any information on the police officers engaged in an
arrest by the police must be precise and
unambiguous. Their name tags must read correctly, and a register should have a
record of their personal
information.
2)
The arresting police officer is required to
immediately write up a note of the arrest, which must be seen by at least one person. This witness might be a
member of the detained person's family
or a well-respected local from the area where they were arrested. The note will
also include the arrested person's
signature and the time and date of the arrest.
3)
A person has the right to tell a family member,
acquaintance, or other person he knows of his arrest
and the location where he is being held when
he is
detained by the police.
4)
As soon as the detained
individual is apprehended, he must be informed of the aforementioned right.
5)
If a family member, acquaintance, or other person the
arrested knows resides outside the district
or town, the time, date, and location of the arrested person's detention
must be disclosed to that person via the district's legal aid organisation. Within 8 to 12 hours following the arrest, the responsible police station must likewise
carry out the same action.
6)
A notebook must be kept at the scene of the arrest
with information on the arrest and the individual
who was taken into custody. The entry must also include information on the
police officer who has
custody of the individual who has
been detained.
7)
If the individual in custody desires it, he or she
must have any injuries or markings on their
bodies evaluated and documented. The arrested person and the police
officer in charge of the arrest must
both sign this examination, known as the "Inspection Note," and a
copy must be sent to the detained
individual.
8)
A qualified physician selected from a panel of
physicians authorised by the Director of Health Services
of the relevant state must conduct a medical examination of the prisoner
every 48 hours while they are in custody.
The Director must put together
a list of licenced physicians for the tehsils and districts.
9)
Copies of every document should be provided
to the local magistrate for his
files.
10)
The arrested individual is permitted to speak with his or her attorney while being questioned, as long as the
conversation does not continue the whole time.
11)
There must
be a
police control room in every district and state police
headquarters, and the police
officer in charge of the arrest is required to provide the information of the
individual within 12 hours after the
arrest. The aforementioned information has to be posted on a board in the control
room.
2. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Rajaram (2013),
the Indian Supreme Court stressed the importance of conducting a fair
and unbiased inquiry. The inquiry must be fair and transparent, the court said, and any
irregularities or crimes committed during the
investigation would invalidate both the probe and any ensuing trial.
The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur Bench's ruling that the defendant
was innocent and entitled to an
acquittal from the charges brought against him for allegedly committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was challenged by the State of Rajasthan in an appeal (for short IPC). The learned Additional Session Judge, Hanumangarh, found the defendant to be guilty and sentenced him to death as a result.
The accusations that formed the basis of the prosecution's case show that
Sahi Ram (PW-6) provided information
to the Sangaria Police Station on December 20, 1989, at around 7:15 a.m., claiming that his younger brother
was responsible for the homicidal deaths of 5 people, including his father, younger brother, the younger brother's
wife, and their two children. Murders were perpetrated on December 19, 1989, and they were caused by gunfire. Investigations were conducted based on the
facts provided, and once they were finished, a
charge sheet was submitted identifying the appellant as the perpetrator
of offences punishable under
Sections 302 IPC and 27
of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 (commonly known as the "Arms Act"). Seven witnesses were
questioned to support the account it was presenting. The case against you is supported by circumstantial
evidence. The accused gave a self-examination in which he identified himself as DW-1 and provided documents for
recording that disputed the veracity
of the testimony provided by PWs 3 and 4, claiming that they had negative views
of him and had unjustly implicated
him. The Trial Court found the accused guilty of the above- mentioned offence punishable under Section
302 IPC after accepting the testimony of Vinod
Kumar (PW-3) and Nand Ram (PW-4), in front of whom the accused is said
to have made an extrajudicial
confession. The accused was also given a death sentence in addition to a fine
of Rs. 5000. The allegations about
Section 27 of the Arms Act, however, were deemed to be unfounded. A request for confirmation under Section 366 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(also known as the "Code") was submitted after the death penalty was
imposed. A defendant appealed as
well. As was said at the outset, the High Court ruled that the evidence in the appeal was insufficient to convict
the accused, making the prosecution's case weak. The Supreme Court rejected the PW-3 and PW-4 witnesses' testimony,
which served as the basis for the Trial
Court's ruling, since it was deemed untrustworthy and incoherent.
The experienced attorney
for the appellant-State argued that the High Court's strategy
is flawed in support of the appeal. The PW-3 and
PW-4 witnesses' testimony had no flaws that would require it to be disregarded. There is no reason why they would
falsely accuse the accused, even if
they were linked to both the dead and the accused. The Supreme Court ignored
the accused's behaviour, which the Trial Court judged to be questionable, when it ordered
their acquittal. Since the accused could not explain how the blood
stains arrived on the accused's clothing,
the High Court disregarded the fact that the accused was wearing clothing with bloodstains.
The following events are mentioned to emphasise the accused's guilt:
(1)
The accused made an extrajudicial confession of the crime in front of the witnesses.
(2)
The suspect was seen leaving the side of the dead
Maniram's dhani as soon as the event occurred.
(3)
The accused's actions just after the event.
(4)
The discovery of human
blood on the accused's clothing
(5)
The accused recovered the handgun that he had
obtained. It should be emphasised that events 1, 2, and 3 have to do with PWs 3 and 4's testimony. It was discovered that the handgun
from which the supposedly recovered
rounds were discharged was not the one that was used to shoot
the deceased corpses.
3. National
Human Rights Commission v. State of Gujarat (2009): In this case, the court determined that when police learn of the
conduct of a crime that is punishable by law,
they are required to file a First Information Report (FIR) as soon as
possible. In accordance with Article
21 of the Indian Constitution, failing to do so would be a breach
of the victim's basic rights.
Conclusion
In criminal
law, an investigation is a very detailed process
that is carried out according
to a set legal process.
Investigations into felonies go through a very thorough procedure. There are several steps that must be carefully taken
to complete. Another mistake might lead to the
capture of the criminal. In their investigation of the crime, the police
would not spare any details.
Identification of the offence and filing of the complaint under section 173 to
the Magistrate mark the conclusion of
the investigation. Once the trial is complete and the court determines that the guilty individual
committed the crime, he or she will be found guilty and sentenced accordingly.
Bibliography
1. Critical
Analysis of Police Investigation in Cr.P.C - International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, International
Journal of Law Management & Humaniti https://doij.org/10.10000/IJLMH.111281.
3. Mughal, J. R. D., & Ahmad, M. (2012). Procedure For Investigation Where Cognizable Offence Suspected. Available at SSRN 1989629.
4. SUNDARAM B, L. E. E. L.
E. S. H., SUNDARAM, A., GAYATHRI,
R., & PRIYA,
V. V. (2020). A Study on General Awareness on Power of Police to
Investigate Under Criminal
Procedural Code Among Individuals from Different Place of Living. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 26(2), 2039-2048.
Goutam, S. (2010).
Inquest Procedure in Judicial Investigation in India. Goutam, Swapneshwar, Inquest procedure in judicial investigation in
India: With Reference to the Proposed
New Corner Act. SUPREME LAW TODAY,
6(133),
[1] Mughal, J. R. D., & Ahmad,
M. (2012). Procedure
For Investigation Where Cognizable Offence
Suspected. Available at SSRN 1989629.
[2] Critical Analysis
of Police Investigation in Cr.P.C - International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, International Journal of Law Management & Humaniti https://doij.org/10.10000/IJLMH.111281.
Article Information
DISCUSS THE PROCESS OF INVESTIGATION. (SECTION 154–173) BY: VIDUSHI RASTOGI
Authors: VIDUSHI RASTOGI
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/06/22
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.