The duty of an Investigating Officer, therefore is to discover the truth irrespective the fact that what the parties, rival to each other, have the claims. Once evidence is collected, it is to be produced before the Court who in due course after judicial scrutiny of entire material has to arrive at a just decision of the case. Two sons were the best witnesses of the occurrence. The Investigating Officer advanced a lame excuse that they were minors. Law does not prohibit recording of statement of a minor unless there are compelling circumstance to do otherwise. Therefore, most important evidence in this case has been kept away from the Court deliberately which has made adverse effects on prosecutions’ case.
It is settled principle of law that medical evidence is at the most a confirmatory proof, which does not identify the culprit. It simply indicates nature of injuries, kind of weapon used, duration between injuries and death as well as between death and post mortem.
So prosecution remains only with the evidence that dead body was found in a house where appellant and deceased were residing under the same rood. The principles do not allow recording of conviction on presumptions however strong may be. Prosecution in all circumstances is under strict obligation to prove its case independently but not at the strength of weakness of defence.
Crl. Appeal No. 701 of 2020
Ghulam Rasool vs. the State
0 Comments