Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 44745
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G. Girish, J
JISHNU REGHU @ KANNAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
OP(CRL.) NO. 455 OF 2026|CRIME NO.1016/2021|SC NO.157 OF 2022|CRMP 20/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C. Rajendran, K.R. Ranjith, R.S. Sreevidya, Dhanya K., Gauri Priya N.
For the Respondents: Sameer.S
Further investigation to cure defects in the collection of scientific evidence during the trial is permissible to meet the ends of justice, provided the accused has the opportunity to challenge the resulting findings.
Headnote:The petitioners challenged an order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India permitting further investigation in a case involving offences under Sections 120B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 452, 427, 506(ii), 294(b), and 212 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Sections 20 and 27 of the Arms Act. During the trial, after the examination of 44 witnesses, the prosecution sought to correct errors in the recording of voice samples and the decoding of tower locations to ensure scientific evidence was collected from accredited laboratories as per Section 79A of the Information Technology Act. The court found that curing defects in investigation to meet the ends of justice is permissible. The primary issue was whether permitting further investigation at a belated stage of the trial to correct scientific evidence constitutes filling a lacuna or causes prejudice to the accused. The court reasoned that affording the Investigating Agency an opportunity to cure defects that crept into the investigation is not prohibited by law and is necessary to meet the ends of justice, especially since the accused retains the right to challenge the findings of the further investigation before the Trial Court. The prayer of the petitioners to set aside Ext.P9 order passed by the Trial Court is rejected.
THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The order dated 05.06.2026 of the Additional Sessions Court I, Pathanamthitta, in SC No.157 of 2022, permitting further investigation in the aforesaid case at the request of the Investigating Officer, is under challenge in this Original Petition filed by the accused Nos.1 and 3 in the aforesaid case, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The case mentioned above related to the commission of offence under Sections 120B , 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 452, 427, 506(ii), 294(b) and 212 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 20 and 27 of the Arms Act. The trial proceeded before the learned Additional Sessions Judge with the examination of about 44 witnesses from the part of the prosecution. At that stage, the prosecution as well as the Investigating Officer realised that there was a flaw in connection with the recording of voice samples of the 5th accused and the decoding of tower locations which were done towards adducing scientific evidence. It is towards correcting the aforesaid errors that the Investigating Officer approached the court below, seeking permission for further investigation. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge permitted further investigation. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid course adopted by the court below is wrong and against the settled principles of law.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
The voice sample of the 5th accused was recorded in a radio station at Thiruvalla at the time of investigation in the aforesaid case. Now that the Investigating Agency as well as the prosecution realised at this stage that the recording of the voice sample ought to have been done at an accredited laboratory. It is thus stated that the fallacy in the above regard has to be corrected by recording voice sample of the 5th accused at the Cyber Forensic Division, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram, which is the notified lab to take voice sample under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act. Moreover, the Investigating Agency as well as the prosecution found that the CDR collected in the case only disclosed the cell IDs, and that the decoded tower locations were not collected. The above defect was also sought to have been corrected by the further investigation.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecution realized the need to follow the above procedure only at a time when the trial was in progress with the examination of more than 44 witnesses from the part of the prosecution. It is thus argued that permitting further investigation at this stage would cause prejudice to the accused. It is also argued that the prosecution cannot be permitted to fill up the lacuna in their case by way of undertaking further investigation.
Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that what is sought to be accomplished by the further investigation is the correction of an error which happened in the collection of scientific evidence, and that it is squarely permissible as per the established principles of law.
It is true that the trial has passed a long way with the examination of 44 witnesses from the part of the prosecution, and that the Investigating Agency as well as the prosecution realised the errors which crept in the collection of scientific evidence regarding the recording of voice sample and decoding of tower locations at a belated stage. But that aspect cannot be taken into account as a ground to refuse further investigation as prayed for by the prosecution. It has to be stated that affording an opportunity to the Investigating Agency to cure the defect which had crept in the investigation, cannot be termed as a course prohibited by law. If such a measure is necessary to meet the ends of
