New Delhi: Observing that “flexible change” is needed in the mindset of police officers, the Supreme Court on Monday said an investigative officer is expected to carry out a fair investigation and should not be “too eager to prepare” the murder case against the defendant.
From a mildly innocent murder case who did not number murder.
The role and severity of the punishment is very different for violations under the guilty of murder do not amount to murder and murder under the IPC as the intention to commit violations missing in the previous case.
Observations, related to the role of investigating officers and probes related to criminal cases, have been made in the verdict by the peak court while releasing several people accused of murder.
“In other words, it is the primary duty (investigation officer) to satisfy that a case will fall under the murder of the guilty no murder and then murder.
When there is enough material, he will not be too eager to prepare cases for violations that can punished under the 302 part of the IPC, “,” said the bench consisting of Kaul Judges and MMM Sundresh in assessment.
In a 42-page assessment, Justice Sundresh said that “the bending change was needed” in the mind of an investigative officer because a policeman like that was a court officer Also and his job is to find out the truth and help the court in coming to the right conclusion.
He did not know the party, one of the victims or defendants but will only be guided by law and become a symbol of justice in his investigation, “said the verdict, added” an officer investigations that are public servants are expected to do fair investigation.
When doing it, it is expected to find material available to arrive at the right conclusion.
He was worried about the violation of the perpetrator.
It was a violation he investigated.
“Every time the death occurs, a police officer is expected to cover all aspects and, in the process, it must always be remembered whether the violation will come under Section 299 (murder) IPC Sans part 300 (murder) IPC, it said.” Fair investigation will be Being severe when there is an oppression.
Pressing motifs, injuries, and other existing factors that will have the effect of modifying or changing the charge will amount to an unco alcohol investigation and, therefore, become a false narrative, “he said.
If the court found that the foundation of the prosecution case was wrong and would not Adjusting to the doctrine of justice as a conscious oppression, the prosecution case falls to the ground unless there is an unacceptable evidence as a different cost of cost penalties, the verdict said the court was hearing a request for incompiders in a murder case this.
According to the prosecution, three people – Ladduram, Mohan, and Brijender – were killed by the defendant on July 18, 1989, due to land disputes in Rajasthan.
Two separate experiments were carried out and on the first occasion, the trial court released two and sentenced five accused and in the appeal, The High Court released one accusation when confirming the fourth other.
Then, an array of 10 accused was added and the case was taken to be tried for the second time during the same incident.
This time, four of them were punished while someone referred to the Juvenile Justice Board as a teenager contrary to the law, and the remaining five were released.
The High Court released four at the second trial.
The APEX court provides benefits from doubts to the four remaining inmates.
“After undergoing an assessment of four occasions by both courts, we found that the beliefs given must be disturbed in the light of the discussion made …
There are too many gaps that cannot be filled, there is also no evidence.
To achieve different conclusions including those who exceed the rights Private defense, “Top Court said.