Judicial Control over police investigation in India, Thesis of Law

Download Judicial Control over police investigation in India and more Thesis Law in PDF only on Docsity!

i

JUDICIALCONTROLOVERPOLICEINVESTIGATION

ThesisSubmittedin PARTIALFULFILLMENTOFTHEREQUIREMENTFORTHEDEGREEOFMASTEROF LAWS 2019 - 2020

SCHOOLOFLEGALSTUDIES

COCHINUNIERSITYOFSCIENCEANDTECHNOLOGY

KOCHI- 22

ii

DECLARATION

Ideclarethatthiswrittensubmissionrepresentsmyideasinmyownwordsand whereother’sideashavebeenusedorwordsincludedIhaveadequatelycitedand referencedtheoriginalsource.IalsodeclarethatIhaveadheredtoallprinciplesof academichonestyand integrityand have notmisrepresented orfabricated or falsifiedanyidea/data/fact/sourcein mysubmission.Iunderstandthatany violationoftheabovewillbecausefordisciplinaryactionbytheUniversityandcan alsoevokepenalactionfrom thesourceswhichhavethusnotbeenproperlycitedor fromwhomproperpermissionhasnotbeentaken. Date: 10 th ofJuly, 2020 SignatureofStudent 40119012 RegisterNumber

iv

PREFACE

NormallyInvestigationofoffencesisthefunctionoftheinvestigatingagencies, namely,police.Courtsdon'tinterferewiththesame.Sincemanycaseshappened whereeithertheinvestigationisnotbeingproceededwithorisbeinginfluencedby interestedpersons,thecourtsstartedtomonitorandcontrol theprogressof investigationsinitsvariousstages,suchasFIR,Arrest,search andseizureetc.The courtsbeingthesentinelsofjusticehavebeenvestedwithpowerstoensurethatthe rightsofthecitizensaredulyprotected.Thecourtsalwaysmaintainaconstantvigil againstinactionbytheauthoritiesindischargingtheirdutiesandobligationsinthe interestofthepeople. Thisresearchisintendedtoseethepowerofcourtsinmonitoringinvestigation proceedingsandifthatwouldamountstousurpingtheroleofpoliceininvestigation and whethersuch interference overpolice investigation underthe adversarial system isaptornotandwhethersuchcontrolisadverselyaffectingthecourseof investigationetc.ThroughthisresearchIwillbelookingintothequestionsof,what istheextenttowhichacourtcaninterfereininvestigationprocess.Thereasons behindsuchinterventionsandhowfarjudiciaryhasbeenabletomeettheendsof justicebyinterferingatstagesofinvestigations.Howfarjudiciarythrough suchan interferencebeenabletocheckandbalanceonabuseofpowerorinactivityofpolice. Whatisthecurrentpositionregardingthistopicetc. Thedissertationdealswiththeresearchissue,whetherjudicialcontroloverprocess ofpoliceinvestigationaffectsthefundamentalsofadversarialsystemwithreference

v toIndependenceofJudiciaryandisjustified. Forthepurposeofcollectingnecessaryinformation,thestudyhasfollowedthe doctrinalmethodofresearch. ChapterOneistheintroductionchapteranddiscussesthevarioustopicsrelatedto criminaljusticesystem,investigation,powerofpolice,roleofcourtsetc. TheSecondChapterexaminestheprovisionsunderwhichjudiciarycontroloverthe processofFIRandprovisionsrelatedthereto. ChapterThreeanalysestheprovisionsrelatedtoarrest,searchandseizure,andthe roleofjudiciaryoverthesameprocesses. Judicialinterference overappointmentofinvestigating officeristhe core of discussionsundertheChapterFourofthiswork. AndfinallyChapterFivedealswiththeconclusionsandsuggestions.Thischapter discussesthemajorfindingsofthestudyandputsforwardcertainsuggestionsbased onthem.

vii

1. 1. 10 RoleofJudiciary CHAPTERTWO JUDICIALCONTROLOVERFIR
2. 1 .Introduction
3. 2 .ImportanceofFIR
4. 3 .RoleofpoliceandFIR
5. 4 .UsesofFIR
6. 5 .EvidentiaryvalueofFIR
7. 6 .FIRandinvestigation
8. 7 FeaturesofFIR
9. 8 RoleofPolice
10. 9 JudicialinterferenceoverFIR CHAPTERTHREE JUDICIALCONTROLOVERSEARCH,SEIZUREANDARREST Introduction
11. 1 .Collectionofevidence
12. 2 .Searchandseizure
13. 3 .Searchatsceneofoccurrence
14. 4 .SearchandseizureunderSections 165 and 166 CrPC
15. 5 .Procedurestobefollowedduringsearchandseizure.
16. 6 .Arrest
17. 7 .Privatearrestandsituationswhenarrestcanbemade
18. 8 .Powerofpolice
19. 9 .Judicialinterferenceoverarrestandsearchandseizure CHAPTERFOUR JUDICIALCONTROLOVERAPPOINTMENTOFINVESTIGATINGOFFICERS Introduction
20. 1 IntroductiontoC.B.I

viii

4. 2 PowerofC.B.I
5. 3 Policeandinvestigation
6. 4 Legalposition
7. 5 PoliceandInvestigation
8. 6 Judicialcontroloverappointmentofinvestigatingofficers CHAPTERFIVE CONCLUSIONANDSUGGESTIONS
9. 1 .Introduction
10. 2 .Fundamentalsofadversarialsystem
11. 3 .IndependentandImpartialjudiciary
12. 4 Suggestions BIBLIOGRAPHY

LISTOFABBREVIATIONS

 AIR AllIndiaReporter  AllER AllEnglandLawReports  A.L.R. 3 d. AmericanLawReports,ThirdSeries  Anr. Another  Art. Article  Bom. Bombay  Bom.L.R. BombayLawReview  BomC.R. BombayCasesReporter  BomCR(Cri) BombayCasesReporter(Criminal)  Co. Company  Cr. Criminal  CRL.A. CriminalAppeal

x  Sec. Section  S.O. StationOfficer  S.I Superintendentofpolice  S.L.P. SpecialLeavePetition  U.O.I.UnionofIndia  U.P. UttarPradesh  U.K UnitedKingdom  US UnitedStatesofAmerica  u/s UnderSection  v. Versus  Vol. Volume  Viz. Videlicet  www WorldWideWeb  W.P. WritPetition.  & And  @ At

TABLEOFCASES

1 ) AdriDharanDasv .WestBengalState, 2005 CrLJ 1706 (SC) 2 ) BhagwantSinghv. CommissionerofPolice, 1985 AIR 1285 3 ) DharmeshbhaiVasudev. bhaiandOthersv .StateofGujarat,Criminalappeal no. 914 of 2009

xi

16 ) MinorIrrigation&RuralEngg.Services,U.P.v .SahngooRam Arya, 2002 ( 5 )SCC

• 4 ) DelhiJudicialServiceAssociationv. StateofGujarat&Ors,AIR
• 5 ) D.KBasuv. stateofwestBengal, 19971 SCC
• 6 ) Emperorv. KhwajaNazirAhmad,( 1945 ) 47 BOMLR
• 7 ) Haryanav. Ch.BhajanLal, 1992 AIR
• 8 ) H.N.Rishudv. StateofDelhi,AIR 1955 SC 196 : 1955 CrLJ
• 9 ) HamantYashwantDhagev StateofMaharashtra,Criminalappeal 1100 f
• 10 ) IrshadAhammedstateofUttarakhandW.P.N.o. 16693 (W)of
• 11 ) JoginderKumarv .StateofU.P, 1994 SCC( 4 )
• 12 ) KishanLalv. DharmendraBafnaandAnother,Criminialappealno. 1283 of
• 13 ) LalithaKumariv. GovernmentofU.P,W.PNo. 68 OF
• 14 ) LalNarangv. StateofDelhiAdministration. 19792 SCC
• 15 ) M.C.Abrahamv. MaharashtraState( 2003 ) 2 SCC
• 17 ) Mohd.Anisv .UnionofIndia, 1994 Supp( 1 )SCC
• 18 ) N.A.S.Ansariv. StateofHaryana,AIR 1981 SC
• 19 ) NirmaljeetSinghHoonv .StateofWestBengal,A.I.R 1972 SC
• 20 ) OmPrakashv state,AIR 1956 All
• 21 ) Prabhavathiammav. TheStateofKerala,W.P(C)No. 30220 OF
• 22 ) Ramjawayav stateofPunjab,AIR 1955 SC
• 23 ) Rathinammalv. StateofTamilNadu, 2017 SCCMad
• 24 ) Rv. MetropolitanPoliceCommissioner,( 1953 ) 2 AllER
• 25 ) StateofAndhraPradeshv. A.S.Peter,Appeal(crl) 1119 of
• 26 ) StateofBombayv .RusyMistryandAnr.AIR 1960 SC
• 27 ) SomaBhaiv .StateofGujarat,AIR 1975 SC
• 28 ) StateofBiharv .J.A.C.Saldanha,AIR 1980 SC
• 29 ) StateofMaharashtrav SarangdharsinghShivdassingh,SLP(crl)no.
• 30 ) StateofAndhraPradeshv .A.S.Peter,Appeal(crl) 1119 of
• 31 ) Sakirivasuv stateofUP, 20082 SCC
• 32 ) .P.,Jaipurv .StateofRajasthan&Anr,( 2001 ) 3 SCC
• 33 ) StateoWestBengalv .SammpatLal,AIR 1985 SC
• 34 ) T.TAntonyv. StateofKerala,SLP(crl.) 1522 OF
• 35 ) TapinderSinghv .StateofPunjab, 1970 AIR

1

CHAPTER- 1

INTRODUCTION

1. 1 Introduction Thecriminaljusticesystemismainlyoftwotypes,theadversarialsystemandthe inquisitorialsystem.Adversarialsystemisthesysteminwhichajudgedecideson acasebasedontheargumentsandevidencespresentedinacourtandthe inquisitorialsystem givesroletothejudgewhoconductsboththeinvestigation andthetrialand decideswhatquestionstobeaskedanddefinesthescopeand extentoftheinquiry.Thejudgeactsanimpartialpersonwhodefinesthetruth and ordersjudgementaccordingly.Courtsin theadversarialsystem arean impartialpersonwhoguaranteesthatdueprocessoflaw,justiceandruleoflaw iscarriedout.Sourcesoflawintheadversarysystem arejudicialprecedentsand judicialinterpretationoflaw.Thismakessurethattherightsofthedefendants aresecured.Policeistheprimaryandprerogativefortheprocessofinvestigation andallmattersrelated.
2. 1. 2 FeaturesOfAdversarialSystem Theadversarysystem hasfivemain characteristicssuch asconflictresolution, comparitativelyinactiveorneutralroleofthejudge,averyactiveroleofthe counsels,and aseparateagencyforinvestigation,which ismainlypolice.The adversarialsystem isa conflictresolution mechanism wherein there are two opposingparties,i.e. 1 .,theaccusedandtheprosecution,andanimpartialumpire,the judge.Bothlitigantsbringtheirdisputebeforethecourt.Afterhearingbothsidesthe courtresolvesthedisputeandtheresultsareaccepted.Primaryfactscanbehad from powerfulexaminationsand itisonly by cross-examination,the witness evidencecanbeproperlytested.Thereisnopenalactionwithoutanaccuser,who takestheinitiativeinitandtheresponsibilityforprovingit. (^1) TheCriminaljusticesystem,pageno. 24.

2 Theaccusationisasocialfunction,becausetheviolationoflaw isconsideredasa socialevil.Hence,thesocietytakesleadandassumedtheroleoftheprosecutor. Societybringsthecasebeforeunbiasedarbiters.Therealfightbetweentheaccused andtheaccusertakesplacethereandinalltheconflictsthearbiterstriedto ascertaintwothings;first,whethertheaccusedistheperpetratorofthecrimeand second,ifsotowhatextent. Personalpresence ofthe parties is necessary in the system.Every combat presupposesthepresenceoftwocombatants.Theadversariesarebroughtfaceto faceinacontest,whichtakesplaceinpublic.Eachofthemproducesathisdiscretion hismeansofproof.Theproceedingsresembleaduelwithequalandfairweapons.An independentjudge,whoneitherinvolvedinthepre-trialprocessnorassumedthe roleoftheprosecutorinthetrialphase,willresolvetheconflict.PassiveRoleofthe Judgesisanotherpre-requisiteofcriminalproceeding.Thismeansthatthejudge shouldbeimpartial.Thisrequirementhastwoelements:firstthatthecourtbefree frompersonalconnectioninorprejudicetowardsthecaseatissue,andalsothatthey beinstitutionallyimpartial. Theadversarialsystem placesdecision-makingpowerinthehandsofunbiased judges.Thejudgedeterminestheapplicablelawandthejurydeterminesthefacts.In India,bothlawandfactwillbeanalysedandinterpretedbythejudiciary.judge‘srole istoheartotheevidence,askquestionstowitnessesforclearingupanypoint;tosee thattheadvocatesbehavethemselvesfollowingallcourtmannersandkeeptothe ruleslaiddownbythelaw;tomakesurethatapropertrailiscarriedoutanddecide whatjusticeinthecaseathandis.Ifhegoesbeyondthis,thecourtismorelikelyto beanadvocatethanajudgeandinthisaspect;wecansaythatwhenjudiciary interferes with process ofinvestigation,itis affecting the fundamentals of adversarialsystem with regard to an independentjudiciary.Independence of judiciaryismaintainedjusttopromotetheneutralityofthejudge.Moreoverthe judgemaynotknowthepossibleprocessanddetailsofthecasesincehedoesnot takepartintheoverallinvestigationratherit’sjustinterferencewiththeon-going investigationofthecase.Thejudiciaryshallnotaccepttheroleofaprosecutorinthe adversarysystem andatthesametimeshouldallowthecounselstopresenttheir casebeforethecourt.Sincethejudgeisaimpartialarbitrator,onecanexpectajust judgement.

4 Thepolice,thecourt,theprosecutionandthedefencemustworkasasquadwhose goalisjustice,ateam whosecommanderisthejudge.Thejudgeshouldnotshoulder theroleofainvestigatingofficer,buttakepartinthetrialprocessasanindependent, impartialarbitratorin orderto arriveatthetruth.Heshould not,byplacing questions,terrify,force,complicateorthreatenthewitnesses.Inthissystem itcan beguaranteedthatcourtdecisionisnottheresultofanybiasedthoughtsoroutside pressure,orofpersonalprinciplesbutstrictlyobservingwiththelaw prevailingin thestate.Atthesametime,neitherthepartiescanmakeanyobjectiontothe questionputbythejudge.Similarly,nopartycan,asofright,cross-examinethe witnessupontheanswersgivenonthequestionputbythejudge.Thejudgehasan unlimitedpowertomakethematterclear.Thispowerisgiventothejudgein accusatorialsystem istoelicitthetruthandtominimizetheerrorsintheprocessof trial.So,itisclearthattheintentionbehindthegrantingofsuchwidepoweristo makethejudgeasaparticipantinthetrialbyevincingintelligentandactioninterest bysettingquestionstowitnessesforderivingtruth. TheInvestigationstartsaspre-trialstage,whichincludesinformationtothepolice, arrest,searchandseizure,interrogationoftheaccusedandfilingoffinalreport.Itis thestartofcriminalproceedingswhereinthecaseispreparedforstartingcriminal trialbeforeajudicialtribunal.Herethepoliceenjoywidediscretionindecidingall matterswith regard toinvestigation.Theentireinvestigation in theadversary system isbeingconductedbythepolicewithoutjudicialsupervision.Inthecasesof indictableoffencesinEnglandandcognizableoffencesinIndia,policeconduct investigation,decidewhethertoprosecuteandoftenconducttheprosecutionitself inthetrialcourt. ThepoliceinIndiaenjoysufficientfreedom todecidewhethertoprosecutethe offenderdependingontheavailabilityoftheevidenceagainsthim.Likewise,inIndia policehavesufficientpowertoconductfurtherinvestigationalso.Evenaftertaking cognizanceoftheoffencebythemagistrateitispermissibletoconductfurther investigation.InStateofAndhraPradeshv.A.S.Peter 4 ,courtobservedthat,thelaw doesnotcommandtakingpreviousauthorisationfrom themagistrateforfurther investigation.Moreoverconductingfurtherinvestigationevenafterfilingthecharge (^4) Appeal(crl) 1119 of 2004

5 sheetisthestatutoryrightofthepoliceandnotthejudiciarycanencroachuponthe same. Accordingtotheaccusatorialcriminaljusticesystem judiciaryhavenoauthorityto directtheprocessofinvestigation.Thesystem wantstoensuretheindependence andindividualityofthejudiciary.Investigationisadifficultthingwhichneedsfull freedom to proceed to thespot,arrestpersons,conductsearches,collectthe evidenceetc.Themainfocusofinvestigationistosolveanoffence.Thereasonfor thecommissionoftheoffencewillbescrutinisedindependentlybythecourt.In orderto make sure an independentand impartialdecision,which isthe very fundamentalofanadversarialsystem,thejudgeshouldnotparticipateinthepre- trialprocess,whichismainlyinvestigation.Thus,theaccusatorialsystemensuresthe initialassessmentofthecaseintwostagesbyindependentagencies.

1. 1. 3 DifferenceBetweenAdversarialAndInquisitorialSystem. Theadversarialsystem focusesontruthsbasedonfactsandevidencesbetweenthe prosecution andthedefence,whereas,theinquisitorialsystem usuallyaimsat getting the truth through investigation and examination ofevidences.In the adversarysystem,priordecisionsofthecourtsarebindingonthelowercourtsandin thecaseofinquisitorialsystem,itisconductedbycourtandthesearenosignificance tojudicialprecedents.Judgesarefreetodecideeachcasefreelywithoutdepending uponanypreviousdecisions.Intheadversarialsystem,allpartiesregulatethe witnessestobecalleduponandeventhenatureandcontentoftheevidencesbutin theinquisitorialsystem,thetrialisconductedbythecourtwherejudgesasksand decidesthewitnessestobecalleduponandthemethodinwhichtheyaretobe heard.
2. 1. 4 DoctrineOfSeparationOfPowers Doctrinesimplymeansthatoneorganofthegovernmentshouldnotcontrolor interferewiththeexerciseoffunctionofanotherorgan.Underthisprinciple,wecan seethatthreebranchesoforgansaexecutive,statutoryandjudiciary.Theseparation ofpowersisamethodofkeepingacheckandbalancesoastoensurethatnopower isconcentratedwithasingleorganofthegovernmentandnoscopeofmisuseofit.

7 undersection. 156 CrPC.Arewideandunfetteredandjudiciarycannotinterferewith thesame..Thismeansthatcourtshavenocontrolovertheinvestigation,oroverthe policewhileconductingsuchinvestigation.Butincaseapoliceofficergobeyondthe constrainedlimitsandoffensivelyandunlawfullyexerciseshispowerswithregardto theprocessofinvestigation,thentheCourthastakenitasanecessarytimeto intervenewiththeprocessofinvestigation. Theinterferencebythecourtsintheinvestigationofoffencesisthusacceptableonly ifnon-interference would end in miscarriage ofjustice.Investigation is not compulsoryasthepolicemayinvestigateattheirowndiscretion.Undertheproviso 7 oftheCode,policecanturndowninvestigationandtheycannotbeheldresponsible fornotconductingtheinvestigation.ButtheCodeprovidesasafeguardagainstits misusebyrequiringsubmittinginwritingthefailuretoinvestigateacomplainteven itseemsacognizableoffenceandtelltheinformantforrefusinginvestigationthatis tobeconfirmedbysupervisoryofficers.Accordingtothes. 157 8 CrPClodgingofFIR causethecommencementoftheprocessofinvestigation.Usuallyinvestigationis undertakenbyapoliceofficeroninformationofthecommissionofanoffencebutit isnotisarequirementorconditionforconductinginvestigation.Itcanbedoneeither oninformationorotherwise. Thebeginningoftheprocessofinvestigationissubjecttotwoconditions:thepolice officershouldhavethegroundstosupposethecommissionofacognizableoffence andithastosatisfyitself,astotheexistenceofsufficientgroundsforcarryingout theinvestigation.Theofficer-in-chargeofpolicestationisunderdutytotakeinto considerationofeverycomplaintorinformationinformedintoitofthecommission ofacognizableoffencetheofficer-in-chargeshallthencontinueinpersonordepute asubordinateofficerinthechargeofinvestigation. The meaning ofthe term "investigation"isbroad and ittake accountofall proceduresundertheCodeforthecollectionofevidenceconductedbyapolice officer,or byanypersonotherthanaMagistrate,whoissanctionedbythehim knownastheinvestigatingofficer.An"investigation"denotesintothesearchfor (^7157) ( 1 )(b)ofCrPC (^8) Procedureforinvestigationpreliminaryinquiryisprovidedinthesection 157 ofCrPC

8 materialandfactsforfindingoutifanoffencearecommittedornot.Thejudiciaryis oftheopinionthatinvestigationprimarilyconsistsinthedecidingoffactsand circumstancesofthecase.Thedutyofthepoliceisnotjusttosupportupthe prosecutionwithenoughevidencesbuttomakesurethatjusticeiscarriedoutand truthisfound.Thusthepurposeofinvestigationisnotjusttoprovidetheconviction byanymeansbuttoensurethatoffendersarebroughtintothepublicandjusticeis servedtothevictims.Andthismakesinvestigationaveryimportantaspectfora case. Investigationistheprocessofsearchingforrelevantinformation,collectionoffacts andevidences,questioningpeopleinvolvedandsuchforfindingthetruth. UnderourConstitutiontheintegrityofmanisverywellsecured.Butifapolice officertransgressesthelimitsandexerciseshisinvestigativepowersunlawfullyand improperlyinviolationofanystatutoryprovisionthatcausessignificantharm tothe personallibertyandeventothepropertyofaindividual,theCourtmustweighthe typeandextentoftheinfringementwhenapproachingthepersongrievedforthe redressofanygrievance. Everyinvestigatingofficerisunderobligatorytokeeparecordoftheproceedingsof theinvestigationinadiaryinnarrativeformthatshouldbemadeincludingadequate detailsstatingallimportantparticularscarefullyandunderchronologicalorderand withcompleteobjectivitywhichmayhaveabearingontheresultofthecase.a disorganizedcasediarydefeatstheverypurposethesame. 9 Inspecialcases,another copyshallbesenttotheSuperintendentofPolice.ItwasobservedinOm Prakashv state, 10 “thecasediarymustbewrittenattheplaceofinvestigationandnotatthe endoftheday”.Thecollectionofevidenceincludesmanystepsandmethodsthat encompassthecriticalprocessofinvestigation,thatisto collectallavailable evidence,physical,documentaryand circumstantial,thatareneeded forafull productionofthesamewithregardtosuccessfulandefficienttrialofthecase. Thereisaclearand well-defined rolein crimeprevention anditssubsequent adjudicationbetweenthepoliceandthejudiciary.Attheinvestigativelevel,aareaof (^9) BhagwantSinghv. CommissionerofPolice, 1985 AIR 1285 (^10) AIR 1956 All 241