(1) Dishonest investigation
(2) Section 166, 375, 376 & 511 P.P.C.
(4) Section 4 (l) Cr.P.C. read with Rule 25.2 of the Police Rules, 1934
(5) Section 22 of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021
(6) Rule 2
(v) of the Sindh Police (E & D) Rules, 1988
(7) Article 4 & 155 of Police Order 2002.
Ikramuddin Rajput v. The Inspector General of Police Sindh & others
No doubt, an Investigating Officer plays a crucial role in the administration of the criminal justice system and the constituent of investigation report and its worth keeps hold of plenteous value and repercussions on the outcome of any criminal case. However, at times, a botched-up investigation can become a top impediment and stumbling block in the administration of justice, either intentionally with the aim to favour the accused or unintentional due to inefficiency, incompetence, or unskillfulness of the Investigation Officer. The criminal justice system signifies the procedure for adjudicating criminal cases in order to award a sentence to the culprits for the offence committed by them; and the foremost objective is to penalize the offenders subject to the proof whether the offense has been committed or not, and this very important aspect is attached with the burden of proof on the prosecution which has direct nexus with the investigation report and the material and evidence collected by the Investigation Officer in discharge of his sacred duty to bring out the truth without engaging in any manipulation, favoritism, or exceeding the bounds of the law. A defective investigation gradually contaminates the judicial process and poses a hazard to human rights. In unison, it is the duty of superior officers and officers in charge of police stations to ensure that the Investigating Officer follows the provisions of law conscientiously, without any breach, conducting an impartial and honest investigation with the sole aim of bringing the truth to light. The task of investigation is an art and for attaining the proficiency in the job of investigation, extensive on job training is also required to ensure integrity and uprightness, without any temptation for personal gains or advantages. It is also a foundational pathway for the prosecution case, and being a sacrosanct duty of an investigation officer, it should be performed without any recklessness, sluggishness, or greediness.
C.P.L.A.940-K/2022
Ikramuddin Rajput v. The Inspector General of Police Sindh & others
2024 S C M R 510
The purpose and sagacity behind initiating disciplinary proceedings by the employer is to ascertain whether the charges of misconduct leveled against the delinquent are proven or not and, if so, to determine the appropriate action against him under the applicable Service Laws, Rules and Regulations, which may include the imposition of minor or major penalties in accordance with the sound sense of judgment of the competent Authority. In contrast, the justification and raison d'être for initiating criminal prosecution is entirely different, where the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Both processes have distinctive characteristics and attributes concerning the standard of proof. The object of a departmental inquiry is to investigate allegations of misconduct in order to maintain discipline, decorum, and efficiency within the institution, strengthening and preserving public confidence. In a departmental enquiry, the standard of proof is that of “balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence” but not “proof beyond reasonable doubt”, which is a strict standard required in a criminal trial, where the potential penalties are severe. C.P.L.A.940-K/2022
Ikramuddin Rajput v. The Inspector General of Police Sindh & others
2024 S C M R 510
According to Section 4 (l) Cr.P.C. the term “investigation” includes all the proceedings under the Cr.P.C. for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person. The importance of this duty or task was also given much significance under Rule 25.2 of the Police Rules, 1934 which deals with the power of Investigating Officers, and under sub-rule 3, it is provided that it is the duty of an Investigating Officer to find out the truth of the matter under investigation. His object shall be to discover the actual facts of the case and to arrest the real offender or offenders. He shall not commit himself prematurely to any view of the facts for or against any person. At this juncture, it would also be advantageous to point towards Section 166 (2) P.P.C., which lays down that whoever being a public servant entrusted with the investigation of a case fails to carry out the investigation properly or diligently or fails to pursue the case in any court of law properly and in breach of his duties shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. Whereas Section 27 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, provides that if an Anti-Terrorism Court or a High Court comes to conclusion during the course of or at the conclusion of the trial that the investigating officer, or other concerned officers have failed to carry out investigation properly or diligently or have failed to pursue the case properly and in breach of their duties, it shall be lawful for such Court or, as the case may be, the High Court, to punish the delinquent officers with imprisonment which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both by resort to summary proceedings. While a similar provision has been incorporated under Section 22 of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, which explicates that whoever, being a public servant, entrusted to investigate scheduled offences, fails to carry out the investigation properly or diligently or causes the conduct of false investigation or fails to pursue the case in any court of law properly and in breach of duties, shall be guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment of either description which may extend to three years and with fine. According to Section 2 (v) of the Sindh Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1988, “misconduct” means conduct prejudicial to good order or discipline in the Police Force, or contrary to Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, or unbecoming of a Police Officer and a gentleman, any commission or omission which violates any provision of any law or rules regulating the function and duty of Police Officer or to bring or attempt to bring political or other outside influence directly or indirectly to bear on the Government or any Government Officer in respect of any matter relating to the appointment, promotion, transfer, punishment, retirement or other conditions of service of a Police Officer. Even under Article 4 of the Police Order 2002, it is inter alia provided that the duty of every police officer is to protect life, property and liberty of citizens; preserve and promote public peace; ensure that the rights and privileges, under the law, of a person taken in custody, are protected; prevent the commission of offences and public nuisance; detect and bring offenders to justice; apprehend all persons whom he is legally authorized to apprehend and for whose apprehension, sufficient grounds exist; prevent harassment of women and children in public places; afford relief to people in distress situations, particularly in respect of women and children, etc. Further, Article 155 of the Police Order, 2002, underlines various instances of misconduct that impose penalty on the delinquent, which includes any willful breach or neglect of any provision of law or of any rule or regulation or any order which he is bound to observe or obey or any violation of duty. C.P.L.A.940-K/2022
Ikramuddin Rajput v. The Inspector General of Police Sindh & others
2024 S C M R 510
0 Comments