In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court on Monday overruled its 2018 judgement that had held that if a complainant or an informant of a crime investigate a case then the accused are entitled to acquittal and held that the “question of bias” would depend upon facts and circumstances of each such matters. The apex court said there cannot be any general proposition of law to be laid down that in every case where the informant is the investigator, the trial is vitiated and the accused is entitled to acquittal.
A five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra was not in agreement with the previous judgement and held that those were the views confined to the facts of those cases only. The bench was called upon to decide the correctness of a verdict rendered in the case of Mohan Lal vs State of Punjab (2018) and in subsequent cases in which it was held that if the investigation is conducted by the police officer who himself is the complainant, the trial is vitiated and the accused is entitled to acquittal as a matter of law.
“In a case where the informant himself is the investigator, by that itself cannot be said that the investigation is vitiated on the ground of bias or the like factor. The question of bias or prejudice would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, merely because the informant is the investigator, by that itself the investigation would not suffer the vice of unfairness or bias and therefore on the sole ground that the informant is the investigator, the accused is not entitled to acquittal. “The matter has to be decided on a case to case basis. A contrary decision of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal … and any other decision taking a contrary view that the informant cannot be the investigator and in such a case the accused is entitled to acquittal are not good law and they are specifically overruled,” said the bench which also comprised justices Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M R Shah and S Ravindra Bhat.
Justice Shah, writing 62-page judgement for the bench, held that the top court did not agree to the views held in the Mohan Lal and “It cannot be said that in the … (earlier) decisions, this Court laid down any general proposition of law that in each and every case where the informant is the investigator there is a bias caused to the accused and the entire prosecution case is to be disbelieved and the accused is entitled to acquittal.” The bench added that ground of bias and prejudice have to be raised and proved in each case separately. The bench then dealt with several provisions of the NDPS (Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act) and said that they do not “specifically bar the informant/complainant to be an investigator and officer in charge of a police station for the investigation of the offences under the NDPS Act. On the contrary, it permits…”.
It also dealt with offences under special legislations and said, “We are of the opinion that there cannot be any general proposition of law to be laid down that in every case where the informant is the investigator, the trial is vitiated and the accused is entitled to acquittal.” “Investigation includes even search and seizure. As the investigation is to be carried out by the officer in charge of a police station and none other and therefore purposely Section 53 (of the NDPS Act) authorises the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, invest any officer of the department of drugs control, revenue or excise or any other department or any class of such officers with the powers of an officer in charge of a police station for the investigation of offences under the NDPS Act,” the bench said.
The constitution bench then dealt with earlier views of the court that in cases registered under the NDPS Act related to drug abuse or trafficking, the burden of proof lied with the accused instead of the prosecution and hence, the grounds of bias and prejudice have to be considered adequately. “At this stage, it is required to be noted that the reverse burden does not merely exist in special enactments like the NDPS Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act, but is also a part of the IPC – Section 304B (dowry death) and all such offences under the Penal Code are to be investigated in accordance with the provisions of the CrPC and consequently the informant can himself investigate the said offences under Section 157 CrPC,” the bench held.
There was 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, it said. “Solely on the basis of some apprehension or the doubts, the entire prosecution version cannot be discarded and the accused is not to be straightway acquitted unless and until the accused is able to establish and prove the bias and the prejudice. As held by this Court in the case of … the question of prejudice or bias has to be established and not inferred. The question of bias will have to be decided on the facts of each case,” the judgement said.
The top court also referred to the offences under the IPC and said that there are no “specific bar” against the informant or complainant investigating the case. After answering the reference, the top court sent the cases back to smaller benches to be decided on the facts of each case.
Comments
0 comment