2020 (9) TMI 419 - SC - Indian Laws

Conduct of investigation by the police officer who himself is the complainant - it is alleged that in case the investigation is conducted by the police officer who himself is the complainant, the trial is vitiated and the accused is entitled to acquittal - present matter is placed before the Bench consisting of five Judges - Principles of Natural Justice. Whether in case the investigation is conducted by the informant/police officer who himself is the complainant, the trial is vitiated and in such a situation, the accused is entitled to acquittal? HELD THAT - The first decision relied upon on behalf of the accused is the decision in the case of BHAGWAN SINGH VERSUS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN 1975 (8) TMI 147 - SUPREME COURT , which has been subsequently followed and even considered in the subsequent decisions. It is true that in the case of Bhagwan Singh, this Court acquitted the accused by observing and holding that the complainant himself cannot be an investigator. However, it is required to be noted that in that case the investigation was conducted by a Head Constable who himself was the person to whom the bribe was alleged to have been offered and who lodged the first information report as informant or the complainant. It was noted that the entire case of the prosecution rests solely on the testimony of the Head Constable Ram Singh and four other police constables. It was found that there was not a single independent witness to depose to the offer of bribe by the accused. It was noticed that the Head Constable Ram Singh did not make any effort to get independent respectable witnesses in whose presence the seizure could be made - on facts and considering the entire evidence on record having doubted the prosecution case against the accused and more particularly in the absence of any independent witnesses, though the independent witnesses were available, this Court acquitted the accused by giving him benefit of doubt. Therefore, as such, the decision of this Court in the case of Bhagwan Singh can be said to be a decision on its own facts and cannot be said to be laying an absolute proposition of law that in no case the informant/complainant can be the investigator and that in all the cases where the complainant/informant and the investigating officer is the same, the entire trial is vitiated and the accused is entitled to acquittal. Considering Section 157 Cr.P.C., either on receiving the information or otherwise (may be from other sources like secret information, from the hospital, or telephonic message), it is an obligation cast upon such police officer, in charge of a police station, to take cognizance of the information and to reduce into writing by himself and thereafter to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender. Take an example, if an officer in charge of a police station passes on a road and he finds a dead body and/or a person being beaten who ultimately died and there is no body to give a formal complaint in writing, in such a situation, and when the said officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence, he has to reduce the same in writing in the form of an information/complaint. In such a situation, he is not precluded from further investigating the case. He is not debarred to conduct the investigation in such a situation. The NDPS Act is a complete Code in itself. Section 41(1) authorises a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class or any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, may issue a warrant for the arrest of any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under the NDPS Act, or for the search, whether by day or by night - the NDPS Act does 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, as observed hereinabove. To take a contrary view would be amending Section 53 and the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act and/or adding something which is not there, which is not permissible. There is 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. 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 rightly observed, if at all, the investigation could only be assailed on the ground of bias or real likelihood of bias on the part of the investigating officer the question of bias would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and therefore it is not proper to lay down a broad and unqualified proposition that in every case where the police officer who registered the case by lodging the first information, conducts the investigation that itself had caused prejudice to the accused and thereby it vitiates the entire prosecution case and the accused is entitled to acquittal. Reference is answered.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the trial is vitiated if the investigation is conducted by the informant/police officer who is also the complainant.
2. The applicability of the principles of fair trial and investigation under Article 21 of the Constitution.
3. The interpretation of relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
4. The impact of the reverse burden of proof under the NDPS Act on the fairness of the investigation.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the trial is vitiated if the investigation is conducted by the informant/police officer who is also the complainant.
The Supreme Court examined whether the trial is vitiated if the investigation is conducted by the informant/police officer who is also the complainant. The Court initially referred to the decision in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, which held that if the investigation is conducted by the police officer who is also the complainant, the trial is vitiated and the accused is entitled to acquittal. However, this view was reconsidered in Varinder Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, where it was held that the decision in Mohan Lal would apply prospectively and not affect pending cases. The Court ultimately concluded that the mere fact that the informant is also the investigator does not automatically vitiate the investigation. The question of bias or prejudice must be established based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Issue 2: The applicability of the principles of fair trial and investigation under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court emphasized the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial under Article 21, which includes the right to a fair investigation. The Court noted that a fair investigation requires that the informant and the investigator should not be the same person to avoid any possibility of bias or predetermined conclusions. However, the Court also recognized that the presumption of fairness applies to public officers, including police officers, unless proven otherwise. The Court held that any alleged bias or unfairness must be demonstrated by the accused during the trial.

Issue 3: The interpretation of relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C., particularly Sections 154, 156, and 157, which allow a police officer to receive information about a cognizable offense, record it, and investigate it. The Court also examined the NDPS Act, which contains specific provisions for search, seizure, and arrest, and allows certain officers to be invested with the powers of an officer in charge of a police station for investigation purposes. The Court concluded that there is no statutory bar preventing the informant from conducting the investigation under the Cr.P.C. or the NDPS Act.

Issue 4: The impact of the reverse burden of proof under the NDPS Act on the fairness of the investigation.
The Court addressed the reverse burden of proof under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, which places the burden on the accused to prove their innocence once the prosecution establishes certain foundational facts. The Court held that the reverse burden does not inherently lead to an unfair investigation. The fairness of the investigation must be assessed based on the specific facts of each case, and the accused must demonstrate actual prejudice or bias resulting from the informant conducting the investigation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that:
1. The observations in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Megha Singh v. State of Haryana, and State by Inspector of Police, NIB, Tamil Nadu v. Rajangam, which acquitted the accused on the ground that the informant and investigator being the same vitiated the trial, are confined to their own facts and do not lay down a general proposition of law.
2. In cases where the informant is also the investigator, the investigation is not automatically vitiated on the ground of bias. The question of bias or prejudice must be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
3. The decision in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, which held that the informant cannot be the investigator and that such a situation vitiates the trial, is overruled.
4. The matter should be decided on a case-by-case basis, and the accused must demonstrate actual prejudice or bias resulting from the informant conducting the investigation.

The reference was answered accordingly, and the respective petitions were to be placed before the appropriate Court for further proceedings in light of the observations made.