The Supreme Court has made it clear that accusations of collusion or misconduct against an investigating officer cannot be used to bridge gaps in the prosecution’s case or justify a conviction unsupported by reliable evidence.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that while a defective investigation does not automatically entitle an accused to acquittal, the opposite principle is equally important: guilt cannot be presumed merely because the investigating officer was accused of acting improperly.
The Court stressed that a criminal conviction must rest on dependable evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The case arose from a fatal shooting in which the prosecution alleged that the deceased and four others were on their way to agricultural fields when the accused allegedly ambushed them and opened fire. The deceased was reportedly shot in the back and later succumbed to the injury.
According to the prosecution, a patrolling vehicle accompanied by a Magistrate subsequently arrived at the scene, following which the accused allegedly fled.
Nine witnesses were examined during the trial. The accused were eventually convicted under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Their convictions were later upheld by the High Court, prompting them to approach the Supreme Court.
A major issue before the Court concerned the manner in which the investigation had been conducted.
The High Court had taken note of a complaint alleging collusion by the investigating officer. It relied on the alleged misconduct to explain several shortcomings in the investigation, including the failure to examine independent witnesses, the absence of chemical examination of blood-stained soil and the failure to seize blood-stained clothes.
The Supreme Court, however, found serious difficulty with that approach.
It noted that the complaint against the investigating officer had not emerged from the testimony of eyewitnesses and had not been properly brought into the trial as evidence explaining the defects in the investigation.
The prosecution had argued that an accused should not benefit merely because the investigation was flawed, particularly when allegations had been raised against the officer conducting it.
The Supreme Court agreed only partly.
A defective investigation, the Bench said, cannot automatically become a ground for acquittal. But neither can an unreliable prosecution case be converted into a credible one by pointing fingers at the investigating officer.
The Court found that the evidence presented in the case did not inspire confidence.
It also identified a series of striking lapses. Despite allegations of indiscriminate firing, no cartridges were recovered from the scene. The bullet that allegedly caused the fatal injury was not recovered after exiting the victim’s body. There was no meaningful effort to recover the weapons allegedly used in the crime.
Blood-stained earth was reportedly collected from the spot but was never sent for chemical examination.
The Court also expressed concern over the sequence of events surrounding the investigation. The inquest, it noted, had been conducted before the First Information Statement was recorded, a circumstance that led the Bench to describe the process as appearing “pre-meditated”.
The Supreme Court said the case went beyond an ordinary instance of an imperfect investigation.
According to the Bench, the record suggested an absence of meaningful investigation rather than merely an investigation containing procedural defects.
The High Court, the Supreme Court observed, had erred in placing weight on a complaint against the investigating officer that was not produced during the trial and then using that allegation to treat the prosecution evidence as sufficiently convincing.
The Bench cautioned that allegations of collusion cannot become a convenient tool for filling evidentiary gaps.
Ultimately, the Court reiterated a fundamental principle of criminal justice: however unsatisfactory an investigation may be, a conviction can stand only when the prosecution produces reliable and credible evidence proving the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Where such evidence is missing, suspicion surrounding the conduct of an investigating officer cannot take its place.
