Srinagar: In a judgment with far reaching consequences on criminal justice system, the J&K High Court Thursday held that an Investigating Officer (IO) is legally bound to accept the documents of evidence produced by an accused as the same can have crucial bearing on the case.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar who heard the matter in which an IO was declining to consider the documents produced by the accused opined “the IO cannot and should not shut his eyes to such document or material if it is relevant, necessary or desirable for the purposes of investigation”.
Factual matrix of the case is that the Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Kashmir, Anantnag, on 13th of May 2019 received a letter. It said that one Ajay Kumar Agarwal was operating an office “Host and Finance” at K.P. Road opposite Car Plaza by one Ajay.
The complaint laden letter alleged “Agarwal is involved in instituting fake complaints in different courts of District Anantnag and Kulgam, against some persons residing outside the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir”.
It also alleged Agarwal of exploiting his employees as a front for filing these false complaints. On the basis of these false and frivolous complaints, he would obtain bailable warrants for using them for extortion of money from the intended targets, it read.
An FIR No 69/2019 was registered at Police Station Saddar, Anantnag, under Section 420, 467 and 468 RPC.
Later on Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by Deputy Superintendent of Police was constituted. Upon the completion of investigation, final report was laid by the SIT before the competent court of jurisdiction on 14th September, 2021.
While the trial was pending before the court, the in-charge Police Station Saddar filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag. It pleaded therein that some new facts had surfaced and that the police had embarked upon further investigation.
While the further investigation in the matter was going on, Agarwal claimed to have approached the IO. He requested the officer to consider some documentary evidence in his possession as was relevant and germane to arriving at the truth.
But the IO declined to consider his assertion.
Agarwal thus approached the High Court pleading that refusal of the IO to receive and consider the documentary evidence in his possession has deprived him of his right to prove his innocence.
Allowing Agarwal’s petition. Justice Kumar opined any documentary or oral evidence produced before the IO during the course of investigation by any person including the accused cannot be thrown out. The evidence has to be relevant, necessary or desirable for the purposes of investigation and cannot be thrown out by the Investigating Officer by seeking shelter under Section 91 of the Code, he said.
He stated that fair investigation and trial is not only necessary for the accused. It is equally necessary for the victim and the society which has stakes in ensuring that the real perpetrator of crime is brought to book.
“It is, thus, obligatory on the Investigating Officer to collect the evidences, oral as well as documentary, from all possible sources and such sources may include an accused”, Justice Kumar directed.
An accused he said is not entitled to produce evidence in defense to the allegations under investigation. But if the accused has in his possession documents or other material of sterling quality, which is relevant, necessary or desirable for the purposes of investigation, the Investigating Officer cannot shut his eyes to such material.
The judge said that he arrived at this conclusion by the reading Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
