Tag: Investigation

-Report by Zainab Khan

It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh Vs the state of Chhattisgarh that a convict is entitled to get the equal benefit of the doubt as the co-accused has been given.

FACTS

It was the case of the prosecution that on 31st May 2014, SHO of Chakarbarta Police Station received information about the appellant and his friend carrying cannabis in their car and they were traveling from Raipur to Pendra road. The SHO along with two independent witnesses searched the appellant’s car u/s 50 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act 1985 and found 47.37 kg of cannabis. The SHO further filed a charge sheet against the appellant and his friend. After examining seven witnesses the Special Court convicted the appellant u/s 20(b)(i)(c) of
Narcotics drugs and Psychotropic substances Act 1985 for illegally transporting cannabis and sentenced him to 10 years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1 Lakh, but acquitted the co-accused on the ground of benefit of doubt.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the two independent witnesses didn’t support the statement of the SHO and they denied their presence during the search & seizure process. He further argued that the co-accused can’t be acquitted on the same statement on which the appellant was convicted. The counsel relied upon the judgments of Ajmer Singh Vs the State of Haryana and Mohinder Singh Vs the State of Punjab.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

The learned counsel for the respondent argued that since the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic substances act 1985 is a complete act in itself and when possession of cannabis is proved it is on the accused to prove how the substance came under his possession. The counsel relied upon the judgments of – Mukesh Singh Vs state(Narcotic branch of Delhi ) in which it was held that it is not always necessary to corroborate the testimony of police officials, through
testimony of an independent witness; Dharampal Singh Vs the state of Punjab where it was held that lack of independent witness is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.

COURT’S DECISION

After cross-examining both the independent witness and SHO, a big variation came. Since SHO claims that the process of search & seizure has been done in front of two independent witnesses, whereas both the independent witnesses completely deny its existence. The court observed-

“it is true that sec 54 of NDPA 1985 raises a presumption and the burden shifts on accused to explain as to how he came into possession of the contraband. But to raise the presumption under sec 54 of NDPA 1985, it must first be established that a recovery was made from accused. The moment a doubt is cast upon rhe most fundamental aspect
namely the search and seizure, the appellant will also be entitled to same benefit as given by special court to co-accused.”

The hon’ble court allowed the appeal and granted the benefit of doubt to the appellant and the judgments of the special court and high court were set aside.

The Legal Incubation Centre, Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University, is organizing a Crime Scene Investigation Competition on September 24, 2022.

ABOUT

The objective of CSI is to learn more about the circumstances surrounding a crime by using physical evidence from the crime scene and use of inductive and deductive reasoning to analyze. It is multidisciplinary and involves a systematic search of the crime scene with meticulous observation and documentation of the scene; photography and sketching; the identification, processing, and collection of physical evidence such as fingerprints, footprints, hair, fibres, biological fluids, and materials for DNA analysis; and perhaps the most important, the application of observational skills and reasoning capacity by the participants.

ELIGIBILITY

The competition is not barred to any field of study. It is open to students of any stream, gender, and age group.

AWARDS

• First Prize – Rs. 5,000
• Second Prize – Rs. 4,000
• Third Prize – Rs. 3,000
• Consolation Prize – Rs. 1,500

BROCHURE

CONTACT DETAILS

+91 93924 65656

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSexF8SsXSP6oFNi8z93WKosy72Gf6sw7gxXwvfYUx6dGoQkGA/viewform

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

-Report by Anjana C

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held in the case of Parvez Parwaz & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. that Issue of Sanctions to be considered in an appropriate case.

FACTS

This is a special leave petition against the High Court of Allahabad’s judgment dated 22.02.2018 filed by the unsuccessful petitioners, henceforth referred to as the appellant. The first appellant, in this case, was alleged to have made hate speech leading to the “2007 Gorakhpur Riots” and other offenses leading the same to be registered against Sh. Yogi Adityanath, a then Member of Parliament, and others. The investigation was conducted by the CID (Criminal Investigation Department) of the UP Police. Grievances against this investigation, the appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. In the writ petition, a prayer was made for the following reliefs:

a. A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to investigate fairly and impartially by an independent investigating agency. 
b. To include all appropriate sections of IPC and Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, along with the Religious Institution (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988. It also asked for the investigation of an issue of conspiracy. 
c. To take disciplinary actions against officers who failed to act following the law and did not take any action to initiate criminal liability against the culprits. 
d. To command the respondents to provide the appellants with sufficient security. 

The Division Bench framed three significant issues that needed to be addressed: 
a. Whether to facilitate a fair and impartial investigation, the High Court is vested with the power to transfer the investigation to another body.
b. Whether when the High Court fails to conduct a fair and impartial investigation, the High Court is required to transfer the investigation to an independent authority. 
c. Whether the State has the power to pass an order under Section 196 of Cr.P.C. on someone in a criminal case who gets elected as a Chief Minister in the meantime and it the Executive Head of the State as per Article 163 of the Indian Constitution. 

After assessing both sides of the argument, the Court dismissed the petition because there was no procedural error in the manner of the conduction of the investigation that was noted or any other illegality requiring interference by the Court about its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. Following this dismissal, the present appeal was filed. The counsel for the appellants stated that he would only want to readdress the issue of denial of sanction for the prosecution of the accused under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Appellant’s Contentions: 

In a situation such as this, where the accused is of high status, the Governor has the power to consider the question of grant of sanction, which in this case, the High Court has failed to consider appropriately.

Respondent’s Contention: 

The Counsel states that nothing survives in this matter except academic exercise due to a closed report filed by the appointed investigating agency. The Counsel, addressing the issue of sanctions, states that the first CD containing the
recording was broken, the second was tampered with, and the third simply had a voice sample. These have all been thoroughly examined before the dismissal of the issuance of sanctions.

Judgment: 

The Court observed that the issue of the third CD regarding the tampering and editing of evidence and declared to be undisputed. An affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent also stated that the investigation was closed. It has been noted that the Counsel for the appellants has filed a protest petition that is pending in the Trial Court. The Court found it unnecessary to engage with the contentions put forth by both parties. However, it was said that the legal questions about the issue of sanctions must be left open and considered in a more appropriate case. For the above reasons, this appeal and any other pending applications stand disposed of.