JUDGMENT :

[A.M. Bujor Barua, J.]

1. Heard Mr. T.T Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Ete, learned Advocate General in-charge for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

2. The petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate in this Court, has instituted this public interest litigation seeking for a direction that the investigation wing in the Arunachal Pradesh police be separated so that the police personnel in the investigation wing are entrusted only with the duties of investigating criminal offences and are not made a part of the general duties of the police force. The petitioner refers to the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Prakash Singh and others –vs-Union of India and others, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 1 to substantiate that there is also a requirement by the order of the Supreme Court to have the investigation wing within the police force separated from other general duties.

3. The petitioner states that in view of several instances of inadequate investigation in police cases in respect of heinous crimes in the State of Arunachal Pradesh which ultimately had resulted in acquittal, there is a requirement of separating the investigation wing. The petitioner also states that in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, there are several instances of excesses being committed by the police force in dealing with the public, some of which are also referred in the press and because of such excesses, there is also a requirement of establishing an operating a police complaint authority, which again is also one of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh (supra). The petitioner also refers to several instances that had arisen in dealing with the criminal appeals that in respect of many heinous offences, because of certain infirmities in the investigation stage, the accused persons therein were given the benefit of acquittal. In many such instances, had the investigation being done in the proper manner and such glaring lacunas would not have been there, perhaps the same appeal might have resulted in a conviction of the accused concerned.

4. Although the said statement of the petitioner is made in a broad based manner, but judicial notice can also be taken that on many occasions the accused persons were acquitted only for the reason that certain basic requirements during the investigation was not done and had it been done in a proper manner, perhaps the accused concerned could have been effectively linked to the offence that was committed which would have resulted in a more possibility of the accused person being convicted.

5. No doubt the criminal law jurisprudence provides that unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused concerned was involved in the offence alleged, an order of conviction cannot be passed upon such accused person. But at the same time, a proper investigation done in a more scientific method by taking note of the requirements of the law relating to the offence for which the investigation is made, would make it more conducive at the trial to prove it beyond reasonable doubt that the accused alone had committed the offence.

6. From such point, we are of the view that the issue raised in this public interest litigation petition requires a serious consideration in the public interest. The way it would be a travesty of justice if an accused is convicted without there being materials on record to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused alone had committed the offence alleged, it would equally be a travesty of justice if an accused is required to be acquitted merely because the materials which could have been obtained with a more correct investigation could not be obtained to be placed in the trial which would result in the accused being acquitted for the reason of the prosecution being unable to prove it beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused wh