New Delhi: Noting that there is a need for a “flexible change” in the mindset of Police officer, ns Supreme court said on Monday that an investigating officer is expected to conduct an impartial inquiry and should not be “overzealous in preparing”. the killing Case against accused instead of minor matter A case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The role and gravity of the offense under culpable homicide and the punishment for murder under IPC differ greatly as the intention to commit the offense is missing in the former case.
The observations relating to the role of the investigating officers and investigations relating to criminal cases have been made in a judgment by the apex court acquitting several accused persons in a murder case.
“In other words, it is his (investigating officer) primary duty to satisfy that a case would fall under culpable homicide not amounting to murder and then murder. When sufficient material is available, he will not be overzealous in preparing the case for the offense punishable under Section 302 IPC,” said a bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundaresh in a judgment.
In the 42-page judgement, Justice Sundaresh said “a flexible change is needed” in the mind of the investigating officer as such a policeman is also an officer of the court and his duty is to find out the truth and help the court. Coming to the right conclusion.
He does not know the sides of the victim or the accused, but shall be guided only by law and shall be the epitome of impartiality in his investigation,” the judgment said, adding that “an investigating officer being a public servant, as a public servant expected to operate. Investigation in fairness. While doing so, they are expected to explore the available materials to come to the right conclusion. He is concerned with the crime against a criminal. This is the crime he investigates.”
Whenever a death occurs, a police officer is expected to cover all the aspects and in this process, will always keep in mind whether the offense is under section 299 (murder) without section 300 (murder) of IPC. Will come under IPC, it said.
“An impartial investigation becomes a colorful one when repression is involved. Suppressing motive, injury and other existing factors would have the effect of altering or altering the allegation, would amount to a thorough investigation and, therefore, constitutes a false narrative,” it said.
If the courts find that the foundation of the prosecution case is false and does not conform to the principle of fairness against a conscious repression, the prosecution case is dashed unless there is indisputable evidence to conclude the sentencing. be. A separate charge, the verdict said.
The top court was hearing the appeals of the convicts in a murder case. Two separate tests were conducted in the case.
According to the prosecution, three persons – Ladduram, Mohan and Brijender – were murdered on July 18, 1989, over a land dispute in Rajasthan.
Two separate trials were held and on the first occasion, the trial court acquitted two and convicted five of the accused and on appeal, the High Court acquitted one more accused, confirming the conviction of the other four.
Later, a chain of 10 more accused were added and the matter was taken up for trial for the second time on the same incident.
This time, four of them were convicted, while one was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board as a juvenile in contravention of the law, and the remaining five were acquitted. In the second case, the High Court acquitted all four.
The top court granted benefit of doubt to the remaining four convicts.
“After reading the judgments by both the courts on four occasions, we find that the sentences awarded are to be interfered with in the light of the discussions held… To come to a different conclusion, including exceeding the right of private defence,” the top court said.
The role and gravity of the offense under culpable homicide and the punishment for murder under IPC differ greatly as the intention to commit the offense is missing in the former case.
The observations relating to the role of the investigating officers and investigations relating to criminal cases have been made in a judgment by the apex court acquitting several accused persons in a murder case.
“In other words, it is his (investigating officer) primary duty to satisfy that a case would fall under culpable homicide not amounting to murder and then murder. When sufficient material is available, he will not be overzealous in preparing the case for the offense punishable under Section 302 IPC,” said a bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundaresh in a judgment.
In the 42-page judgement, Justice Sundaresh said “a flexible change is needed” in the mind of the investigating officer as such a policeman is also an officer of the court and his duty is to find out the truth and help the court. Coming to the right conclusion.
He does not know the sides of the victim or the accused, but shall be guided only by law and shall be the epitome of impartiality in his investigation,” the judgment said, adding that “an investigating officer being a public servant, as a public servant expected to operate. Investigation in fairness. While doing so, they are expected to explore the available materials to come to the right conclusion. He is concerned with the crime against a criminal. This is the crime he investigates.”
Whenever a death occurs, a police officer is expected to cover all the aspects and in this process, will always keep in mind whether the offense is under section 299 (murder) without section 300 (murder) of IPC. Will come under IPC, it said.
“An impartial investigation becomes a colorful one when repression is involved. Suppressing motive, injury and other existing factors would have the effect of altering or altering the allegation, would amount to a thorough investigation and, therefore, constitutes a false narrative,” it said.
If the courts find that the foundation of the prosecution case is false and does not conform to the principle of fairness against a conscious repression, the prosecution case is dashed unless there is indisputable evidence to conclude the sentencing. be. A separate charge, the verdict said.
The top court was hearing the appeals of the convicts in a murder case. Two separate tests were conducted in the case.
According to the prosecution, three persons – Ladduram, Mohan and Brijender – were murdered on July 18, 1989, over a land dispute in Rajasthan.
Two separate trials were held and on the first occasion, the trial court acquitted two and convicted five of the accused and on appeal, the High Court acquitted one more accused, confirming the conviction of the other four.
Later, a chain of 10 more accused were added and the matter was taken up for trial for the second time on the same incident.
This time, four of them were convicted, while one was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board as a juvenile in contravention of the law, and the remaining five were acquitted. In the second case, the High Court acquitted all four.
The top court granted benefit of doubt to the remaining four convicts.
“After reading the judgments by both the courts on four occasions, we find that the sentences awarded are to be interfered with in the light of the discussions held… To come to a different conclusion, including exceeding the right of private defence,” the top court said.
,