Shoddy Investigation and credibility of Victim’s Testimony:

Once again the Delhi High Court observed a shoddy police investigation done by the police while deciding a criminal appeal against an impugned judgment dated 21.07.2016, whereby the appellants were convicted of offences punishable under section 323, 354, 354A, 356, 394, 450, 452, 506 (Part II) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Brief Details of Complaint as alleged in FIR:

As per the FIR, the accused robbed the complainant of her jewellery and mobile phone on July 07, 2014 thereby, caused hurt and outraged her modesty. It was also alleged that the accused used a knife – a deadly weapon, at the time of committing the said robbery. Upon hearing the alarm, the public near her house caught one of the accused while the other accused managed to escape and was apprehended from his house at around 8 pm later that day.

Trial Court Judgment:

The accused pleaded not guilty and subsequently, the Hon’able Trial Court held the accused guilty and sentenced them to a rigorous imprisonment of 7 years.

Observation of Shoddy Police Investigation during Evidence Evaluation:

The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and while appreciating the evidence, the Hon’able High Court observed the following instances of shoddy police investigation.

1.    The prosecution’s case rests almost entirely on the testimony of the complainant (PW1) and the MLC. Although the investigation in this case has been shoddy and wanting, however, it cannot be disputed that the prosecution has clearly established that the complainant had suffered the injury.

2.    NO RECOVERY OF ROBBED JEWELLERY: It was alleged in the FIR that the complainant was robbed of the jewellery; However, the investigating officer was neither able to recover the jewellery from the accused persons nor any proof was available with the complainant’s or her husband regarding the purchase of such jewellery. The investigating officer relied on the complainant’s husband explanation that the jewellery was made by the gold received by him as labour charges for making jewellery.

3.    NO RECOVERY OF THE STOLEN PHONE FROM THE ACCUSED Person: The police did not recover the stolen mobile from the accused. Interestingly, according to the testimony of the complainant, someone from the crowd had recovered the same and had handed it over to her.

4.    The investigating officer did not examine the persons who apprehended one of the accused persons to the police officers.

5.    The investigating officer did not even examine neighbor of the complainant or any other person from the crowd which gathered outside the house of the complainant upon listening to her loud screams.

6.    The above information was sufficient enough to doubt the prosecution case against the accused persons.

7.    Since one of the accused himself admitted his presence at the place of incident and did not lead any evidence on Why he was present there? His statement was of no value in the absence of evidence. Infact, there was no substance in the defence sought to be built up by the appellants.

8.    Further, the Hon’able High Court disbelieved the case set up by the prosecution that either of the appellants were armed; In other words, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused has used any deadly weapon – knife at the time of incident.

9.    As a result, the whole case of the prosecution was on the complainant’s testimony and MLC.

High Court of Delhi ruling:

The Hon’able High Court considered the clean records and family details of the accused person. The Hon’able High Court reduced the sentence to the period already served and ordered released of the accused persons. However, the accused persons have already served six years in the jail.

Conclusion:

The instant judgment of the Hon’able High Court of Delhi once again highlights the importance of the strong defense for the accused persons wherein during the trial evidence need to be put forward. Many times, even in the absence of shoddy investigation, the courts are left with no option but to rely upon the complainant’s testimony to render the judgment.