64. We have gone through the statement of PW-7 SI Vivekanand, Investigating Officer, who has stated that he was present at the Ugu outpost when he got the information of this case at about 6:15 PM. Information was given by villagers. On getting the information he reached at the spot. Thereafter, he received the papers of this case alongwith the first information report at about 08:00 of 08:30 PM. He started preparing inquest report at 08:30 PM but no eyewitness was present there. It is further stated by him that he did not think it proper to inquire about the case under section 25 Arms Act. So far as case under section 25 Arms Act is concerned even if no inquiry was made by the Investigating Officer about that case it can be said to be a defect of the investigation but presence of the injured as well as deceased alongwith PW-4 Ram Singh at the place of occurrence is fully established by the ocular evidence on record. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the statement of PW-1 Ram Swaroop and PW-4 Ram Singh. It is settled legal position that any defect in the investigation cannot extend any benefit in favour of the accused unless and until it is proved that prejudice was caused to him.

65. In Dayal Singh and others vs. State of Uttranchal 2012 (3) J.I.C. 428 Hon'ble Supreme Court propounded the law on defective or faulty investigation. It was held that –

"The investigating Officer, as well as the doctor who are dealing with the investigation of a criminal case, are obliged to act in accordance with the police manual and the known reasons of medical practice, respectively. They are both obliged to be diligent, truthful and fair in their approach and investigation. A default or breach of duty, intentionally or otherwise, can some times prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. An Investigating Officer is completely responsible and answerable for the manner and methodology adopted in completing his investigation. Where the default and omission is so flagrant that it speaks volumes of deliberate act or such irresponsible attitude of investigation, no court can afford to overlook it."

"Declaration in duty or carelessness is an abuse of discretion under a definite law and misconduct is a violation of indefinite law. Misconduct is a forbidden act whereas dereliction of duty is the forbidden quality of an act and is necessarily indefinite. One is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, with least element of discretion, while the other is primarily an abuse of discretion. This Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Ram Singh Ex. Constable [(1992)4 SCC 54 : (AIR 1992 SC 2188 : 1992 AIR SCW 2595)] stated that the ambit of these expressions had to be construed with reference to the subject-matter and the context where the terms occurs, regard being given to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve. The police service is a disciplined service and it requires maintenance of strict discipline. The consequences of these defaults should normally be attributable to negligence. Police officers and doctors, by their profession, are required to maintain duty decorum of high standards. The standards of investigation and the prestige of the profession are dependent upon the action of such specialized persons. The police manual and even the provisions of the Cr.P.C. Require the investigation to be conducted in a particular manner and method which, in our opinion, stands clearly violated in the present case. ................. Also, in the same case, the court, while referring to the decision in Ram Bihari Yadav and others vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [(1995) 6 SCC 31 : (AIR 1996 SC 122 : 1995 AIR SCW 3810)] noticed that if primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigation, to the omission of lapses by perfunctory investigation or omissions, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the law enforcement agency but also in the administration of justice."

"In the c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document