‘Erring investigators should suffer consequences’

If an accused person had succeeded in a case due to the lapses committed by an investigating officer, the investigating agency must be deemed to have messed up the case resulting in failure of justice, observed the Madras High Court while dismissing a plea moved by a police officer challenging a trial court’s recommendation directing departmental action against him and not to permit him to conduct investigation in any other case.

Citing a Supreme Court order in this regard, Justice N Anand Venkatesh said, “In all such cases, the erring officer must suffer the consequences for his lapses. This is the only way in which seriousness can be infused in performing investigation in all criminal cases.”

“Till courts become strict in following such a practice, the slipshod investigations are going to continue, and it will seriously impair the criminal justice system,” the judge added.

As per the case, inspector K Muthupandi of Sooramangalam station had investigated a case in 2011, which was registered for an offence under Section 302 of IPC (murder). But after considering the entire materials available on record, the trial court in Salem on passed a judgment on October 30, 2014, acquitting the accused persons from all the charges.

However, the Principal Sessions Judge found that the inspector failed to hold proper investigation and had also misled the court by filing certain documents leading to the acquittal of the accused, and had recommended departmental action. It had also directed that the Inspector should not be allowed to investigation in any other case.

Challenging this, the inspector moved the High Court after four years seeking to expunge the remarks made against him by the Principal Sessions Court. The officer contended that he should have been given an opportunity to give his explanation and only thereafter the trial court should have proceeded to give its findings against him.

However, Justice Anand Venkatesh pointed out that the inspector was very much present before the trial court and he had an opportunity to explain himself during trial, and held that the trial court was perfectly right in making the remarks against him.

If opportunity is contemplated in cases of this nature, where the acquittal itself was due to serious lapses on the part of the investigation officer who has then attempted to cover it up by introducing certain documents to mislead the court, “it will lead to mockery of justice,” the judge added.