KARAN SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA &Anr.

:
SECURING ETHICS IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
Criminal justice system is one of the balancing stone of the governing process of a state. The primary
duty of the state is always to secure peace, law and order in the society and to deliver justice of all kinds
to the poor and the needy. maintaining criminal justice is one of the foremost duties of all the state.
Criminal justice is ensured through the proper and efficient working of the criminal justice system. The
system of criminal justice constitutes judges, advocates, police officers etc. at its primary phase.

In the entire criminal justice process the police officers, particularly the investigating officers, play a vital
role for its success. the entire process of criminal justice is made upon the investigation conducted by
the investigating officer. So it is essential that the investigation must be ethical and impartial and should
uphold genuinety in its entirety.
In this case the hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed the unethical ways of criminal investigation by
the police officer and explained the need for impartial and genuine investigation by the police.

Facts of the case
The prosecution case was that Karan Singh, the appellant, along with his friend named Kalia murdered
Raj by throttling her. The motive for causing murder is the dispute which was existing between appellant
and the deceased regarding non-payment of dues to the deceased from the appellant.
Since the appellant had not paid money there was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant n
3rd and 4th of January 2005. Appellant had then threatened the deceased that he will kill her. In
furtherance thereof Raj was murdered by the appellant and Kalia in the intervening night between 6-
7.1.2005, strangulating her by putting a rope around the deceased's death.
The incident was been witnessed by the mother and sister of the deceased. FIR was registered on
7.1.2005 based on the testimony made by the deceased's mother. The police recorded the statements
of various persons including Maya Devi (PW.3) (deceased's mother), Birma (PW.4) (deceased's sister)
alongwith other people. After completing the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the
appellant. The co-accused Kalia, could not be apprehended and was declared as a proclaimed offender.
The prosecution examined several witnesses including Maya Devi (PW.3), Birma (PW.4) and Omkar
Singh(PW.8). The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 . After the conclusion of the trial, the learnedSessions Judge, Bhiwani,
convicted and sentenced the appellant for imprisonment for life.

Issues Involved
The appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the following issue;
1. Whether the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was correct in affirming the sentence of life
imprisonment against the appellants passed by the Additional Sessions Judge?

Judicial Approach

While dealing with the case the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the matters described in the
arguments by both the parties. Court observed that none of the witnesses were properly cross-
examined by the defense. The defense has failed to beneficially prove, with evidence, every theories
forwarded by them. Court refused to grant benefit of any of these theories by the accused-appellant for
want of evidence. The altercation happened between the accused appellant and the deceased was
taken as a substantial evidence to prove motive for the murder.
The court has formed and recorded the findings as there is no reason for the false implication of the
appellant, who being the Sarpanch of the village was influential person and Omkar being an
independent witness and there was no ground to disregard his testimony.
The court further observed that there is adequate evidence on record to show that Rajesh Kumar, SI
(PW.9), who had conducted the investigation at its initial stage, had not acted in accordance with law
and had favoured the appellant. The investigating officer had not conducted the investigation properly
and he was favourably inclined to the appellant and therefore spoiled the case. There were marks of
dragging the deceased as mentioned in the inquest report, but the officer failed to depict the said
marks. He also did not avail the service of the dog squad or the crime team of the forensic science
laboratory. It was for this reason that the police authorities upon a complaint made, changed the
Investigating Officer, who then conducted the investigation properly.
The hon'ble supreme Court on this point further observed that the investigation into criminal offence
must be free from any objectionable features which may give rise to an apprehension in the mind of the
complainant or the accused, that investigation was not fair and may have been carried out with some
ulterior motive. The investigating officer must not indulge in any kind of mischief, or cause harassment
either to the complainant or the accused. His conduct must be entirely impartial and must dispel any
suspicion regarding the genuineness of the investigation.
Court rejected the appeal petition finding out that there was no merit in the application and the
decision of the High court affirming the sentence by the lower court was correct. Before parting with the
case court expressed its anguish against the state authorities for taking no action against an officer
about whose professional etiquette certain serious findings were recorded by a trial court and the High
Court. For this the court requested the learned Chief Secretary of the State of Haryana to examine the
case, and proceed in accordance with law.

Similar decisions
Ram Bihari Yadev v. State of Bihar &Ors. AIR 1998 SC 1850
Supreme Court, in this case observed that if primacy is given to a designed or negligent investigation, or
to the omissions or lapses created as a result of a faulty investigation, the faith and confidence of the
people would be shaken not only in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice.
Ram Bali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2004 SC2329
It was held that the Court must ensure that the defective investigation purposely carried out by the
investigating officer, does not affect the credibility of the version of events given by the prosecution.
Sonali Mukharjee v. Union of India (2010)15 SCC 25
Omissions made on the part of the investigating officer, where the prosecution succeeds in proving its
case beyond any reasonable doubt by way of adducing evidence, particularly that of eye-witness and
other witnesses, would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution, for the reason that every discrepancy
present in the investigation does weigh upon the court to the extent that it necessarily results in the
acquittal of the accused, unless it is proved that the investigation was held in such a manner that it is
dubbed as a dishonest or guided investigation which will exonerate the accused.
Such Similar views were also observed in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and Ors. , Mohd. Imran Khan v.
State Government, Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. , Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West
Bengal etc.
EVALUATION OF JUDGEMENT
Ethical conduct on the part of the investigating agency is absolutely essential and there must be no
scope for any allegation of mala fides or bias. Words like personal liberty contained in Article 21 of the
constitution of India provided for the widest amplitude, covering all kinds of rights particularly, the right
to personal liberty of citizens of India, and a person cannot be deprived of the same without following
the procedure prescribed and established by law. This way, the investigation agencies are guardians of
the liberty of the innocent citizens. A duty is cast upon the investigating officer to ensure that an
innocent person should not suffer unnecessarily from harassment of false implication.
An investigation is not to be interfered with or influenced even by the courts. Therefore, the
investigating agency must avoid entirely any kind of extraneous influence and investigation must be
carried out enough alacrity and fairness irrespective of the status of the accused or the complainant.
It is high time that the investigating officer as well as the prosecutor concerned are to be held
accountable and appropriate actions are to be taken against them after affording opportunity of being
heard to explain the circumstances lead to failure of the prosecution.
It is necessary to appreciate the Supreme Court for the strict stance it followed against the officer of
gross misconduct in his profession in this case. It was well put by the Supreme Court in requesting state
action against such an officer who committed such a misuse of his professional status and powers.