IRREGULARITIES IN THE INVESTIGATION • The IO took the complaint from the victim and issued an acknowledgement. He claims to have suggested a medical checkup, which we are told by the victim is untrue. Even if he did suggest the same, it is not his responsibility to ensure that it is done, in the interest of an accurate investigation? • On receipt of the written complaint, the IO did not conduct the crime scene investigation (Mahajar). Had he done so, there could have been vital evidences and witnesses. There are several commercial establishments nearby and it is but obvious that there could have been at least a handful of eye witness accounts. This is such a crucial aspect of any criminal investigation and yet it has not been done, for reasons best known only to the IO. • The IO took account of his night patrol constables as eye witnesses to the crime and based the same he came to conclusion that that it was a case of only verbal altercation. First of all, the statements made by the constables in question, were not in the presence of the victim and hence there was no way for the IO to ascertain the veracity of such statements. Further, it was not communicated to the complainant that the IO had opined that it was not a case of assault and intimidation and rather it was one of verbal altercation. Had he recorded the statements of the constables in the presence of complainant, it would not have stood since the latter would have disagreed with such version of the incident and rather narrated what actually happened. • The eye witness constables arrived at the crime scene only after the complainant raised an alarm on seeing them at a distance. By then, the complainant had already been assaulted for the first time. In this case, there were no eye witnesses. So, how does the IO account for this? • When the IO summoned some 4 individuals to the station to record their statements, he should have asked the complainant also be present, not only to identify them but also listen to the statements being made such that the investigation could have been unbiased and undiluted. At least, the IO should have informed the complainant about the statements of these 4 individuals so that there was an opportunity for the complainant to object to claims thereof that were untrue. By not doing so, the investigation carried out by the IO is contra to the principle of natural justice and hence not maintainable under law. • The IO states that the accused had been to a movie and after the show they were looking for a bite. Has he sought any documentary evidence from the accused to prove their claims? As a matter of fact, the first question is, what are 12 people from Rajajinagar doing in the CBD area so late in the night. Why had they assembled on the street in such large numbers at such unearthly hours? The IO does not have any information about this. • Yet another major lapse on the part of the IO is that he has completely ignored a very significant factor in any investigation i.e. circumstantial evidence. • The bone of contention with respect to the Io has been that, based on the account of the eye witness constables and the statements of the accused, he concluded that this was not an assault case and rather one of verbal altercation, which is how the accused were booked under non-cognizable offences. Keeping aside the assault on the complainant, the accused could still be booked under IPC Sec 506 for criminal intimidation. The complainant says that the accused kept intimidating him all along the incident by stating that they know where he lives and would attack him and his family any moment. They had all claimed to be associated to some politician from Rajijanagar and that they would use their influence to inflict pain and horror on the complainant. Yet, the IO has failed to do so. • Has the IO established the antecedents of the accused? This could also be a vital piece of information. • In the event that IO is unable to conclude the investigation to the effect of establishing the possibility of assault and criminal investigation, he could have left it to the jurisdictional court to ascertain the truth. Yet he didn’t do that either.
Posted on: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 17:55:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015