Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 23799
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
BINOY V
– Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 1118 2022
P.SREEKUMAR, RENOY VINCENT, HELEN P.A., ARUN ROY, SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI, ATHUL ROY, C.N.PRABHAKARAN
A poorly conducted investigation can lead to the setting aside of a final report and necessitate a re-investigation to uphold justice.
Headnote:
Investigation - Crime - IPC Sections 468, 471 - Highlighted court concerns regarding the adequacy of the initial investigation and mandated a re-investigation based on failure to comply with forensic requisitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner alleged that a crime was committed involving forgery of his signature under the Right to Information Act, leading to police misconduct and inadequate investigation in Crime No. 167/2017.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the initial investigation inadequate, lacking essential materials, and set aside the final report, ordering a re-investigation by a different officer due to doubts raised over the propriety of the initial investigation.
Issues: Whether the initial investigation into Crime No. 167/2017 was conducted properly and if a re-investigation was warranted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that insufficient evidence and failure to follow proper procedures during the investigation necessitated a re-investigation to ensure justice.
Final Decision: Writ petition is allowed with a directive for re-investigation.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner inter alia, seeks for the constitution of a Special Investigation Team to conduct further investigation into Crime No.167/2017 of Harippad Police Station. Petitioner also seeks for a direction to conduct an enquiry into the irregularities committed in the investigation into the aforesaid crime and take action against persons who committed such irregularities.
2. Petitioner and the 5th respondent were in a matrimonial relationship. Since there were disputes in the relationship, an attempt was made by the 5th respondent to obtain certain information. It is alleged that, the application submitted by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act was misused by the 5th respondent to fabricate a request to obtain certain details of the Sister-in-law of the petitioner with intent to create trouble in their family relationship. On enquiry, petitioner realised that, the 5th respondent had committed illegalities with the aid of the 6th respondent and hence, a complaint was filed as Crime No. 167/2017 of Harippad Police Station.
3. As per the allegations in the aforementioned crime, the accused are alleged to have forged the signature and the handwriting of the petitioner and submitted a forged application under the Right to Information Act and committed the offences under Sections 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . After investigation, a final report was filed on 04.02.2019, referring the case as mistake of fact, as evident from Ext.P6. Petitioner contends that, no proper investigation has been conducted and that, the conclusions arrived at by the Investigating OfÏcer are based on no materials and also that the investigation was conducted malafide with a purposeful intention to shield the culprits.
4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 4th respondent on
24.02.2023, stating that a full-fledged investigation has been conducted and the crime was referred as mistake of fact and even though notice was served on the petitioner, since he had not filed any objection or protest complaint, the learned Magistrate accepted the refer report and closed the proceedings. It was also pointed out that, the specimen signatures of the persons against whom allegations were raised were taken and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. But it was returned stating that, more specimen signatures or handwritings were required. However, the Investigating OfÏcer came to the conclusion that, the case is required to be closed as mistake of fact.
Despite the above, it was mentioned in the statement that, Investigating OfÏcer is ready to initiate the necessary steps for forensic examination, if ordered by the court.
5. Considering the nature of allegations and the nature of the order being issued, notice to respondents 5 and 6 are dispensed with.
6. Petitioner alleged forgery of his signature and handwriting.
The Investigating OfÏcer had, during the course of investigation into Crime No.167/2017 of Harippad Police Station, obtained sample signatures of the accused and sent it for forensic examination. However, the Forensic Science Laboratory returned the sample without analysing it, requesting for further information and also to provide additional sample signatures for the purpose of an effective analysis. By letter dated 03.04.2018, the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, requested the Investigating OfÏcer to furnish the details requested, for carrying out the analysis. Without complying with the requisition from the Forensic Science Laboratory, the crime was referred as a mistake of fact as per Ext.P6.
7. On a perusal of the final report, it is noticed that the requisition letter requesting for further inputs issued by the Forensic Science Laboratory dated 03.04.2018 was forwarded to the Investigating OfÏcer from the court. Without re-sending the sample for analysis, in deference to the letter dated 03.04.2018, the Investigating OfÏcer filed the final report on 04.02.2019, referring the ca
