CASES ON INVESTIGATION

PREPARED BY
NIMMY SAIRA ZACHARIAH
SAKIRI VASU
v.
STATE OF U.P

by nimmy zachariah
FACTS(PARA 2-8)
• A army Major’s body was recovered from railway track at Mathura
Junction. Three conclusions were made:
1. By Railway Police- It was suicide/ accident
2. Army- after conduting 2 inquires concluded as suicide
3. Sakiri Vasu( father of the deceased)- it is murder as the deceased
had information of corruptions happening inside army
Sakiri Vasu approached High Court u/a 226 to appoint the case to CBI
which was dismissed, after which u/a 136 Sakiri Vasu approached S.C
for the same. Supreme dismissed the SLP.

by nimmy zachariah
ISSUE
• Whether the victim/ victim’s kin can request for special agency to
conduct investigation?

by nimmy zachariah
Judgment
• S.C held the appellant can ask for proper investigation but cannot
request for a special agency to investigate further.
• Interpretation of section 156(3)-para 11-18
• Magistrate can order for re-investigation u/s 156(3)
• Remedies available if police officer refuses to file FIR/ investigate.

by nimmy zachariah
 SHIVAPPA
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA(1995)

by nimmy zachariah
FACTS
• Shivappa s/o Bundappa (A2) was convicted u/s 302 for the murder of
Suresh Singhi along with 5 others. The deceased was the husband of A1,
they had a strained relation as the deceased was an alcoholic and the
deceased used to man-handle A1. A1 along with A2-A5 committed the
murder of A1 , dumped the body near Highway to make it as an accident
case as they had conspired along with A6. A6 being the doctor offered to
draft the postmortem report as accident case. But later on A6, mentioned
that the case is complicated and the postmortem be done by some other
doctor. Eventually, the casue of death was found as not an accident case
u/s 279r/W304a. Later on A1(wife of deceased and A2 voluntarily decides
to 164 statement). A2 retracted from the confession later on. The
conviction was made solely on the basis of confession by trial court which
was accepted by High Court. Thus A2 approached the apex court

by nimmy zachariah
ISSUE
• Whether conviction can be made solely on the basis of confession to
magistrate ?

by nimmy zachariah
JUDGMENT
• “A confession if voluntary and truthfully made is an ‘efficacious proof
of guilt’”-Para 5, unless the court is satisfied that the confession is
voluntary in nature it cannot be acted upon and no further inquire
about the trustworthiness need to be made.
Section 164, makes it clear that the magistrate should inquire if it is
voluntarily made or not.
In this case, in para 8 the magistrate himself has mentioned that he
hasn’t followed the rules in section 164 and did not put an effort to
check whether the statements were voluntarily or not.
Hence, the Apex court kept aside the conviction as it was solely based
on confessional statement.
by nimmy zachariah
 SHIVAPPA
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA(2008)

by nimmy zachariah
FACTS
• PARA 2-5
• The deceased, Shrishail , was murdered in front of his family
members. Accused 1 Ningondeppa master along with Malakaji and 9
others attacked the deceased and threatened the rest of the family.
Fearing assault the family members were late in lodging FIR

by nimmy zachariah
ISSUE
• Whether delay in filing FIR can reduce the evidentiary value of FIR?

by nimmy zachariah
JUDGMENT(PARA 28-29)
• I f the reason for delayed filing is substantiated with sufficient
reasoning then such an FIR would receive the evidentiary value it
deserve

by nimmy zachariah
STATE OF HARYANA
V.
BHAJAN LAL

by nimmy zachariah
FACTS(14-21)
• Bhajan Lal(respondent 1) – his wife Jasma Devi
• Shri Devi Lal(C.M, Respondent)
• Dharam Pal(Respondent 2)
• Dharam pal submitted a complaint to Shri Devi Lal mentioning serious
allegation against Bhajan Lal( He was the union minister for Environment
and forest during initiation of this proceeding-1987)
• After which the complaint was forwarded to DGP through CM’s office,
which was redirected to SP, from SP to SHO. The SHO registered an FIR(161
AND 165 OF IPC) which was requested to be quashed by Respondent one
at HIGH COURT . High ordered ex-parte stay of the proceedings and the FIR
was quashed.

by nimmy zachariah
ISSUE

• Whether the act of quashing the FIR by High Court was right or police
is immune from judicial review of filing FIR?
• Whether police officer met all the requirements to register an FIR?

by nimmy zachariah
ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
• PARA 28,29,30
• SECTION 157-REASON TO SUSPECT- PARA41,42,51,52
• COURT CAME UP WITH 7 GUIDELINES FOR QUASHING FIR- PARA 102
• S.C SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF QUASHING OF FIR BY HIGH COURT
• S.C cancelled the commencement of investigation as the officer was
not eligible to conduct investigation under prevention of corruption
act.PARA

by nimmy zachariah
LALITA KUMARI V. STATE OF
U.P

by nimmy zachariah
FACTS
• PARA 2

by nimmy zachariah
ISSUE
• Whether police can conduct a preliminary inquiry in order to test the
veracity of the information before filing FIR?

by nimmy zachariah
JUDGMENT
• The are 2 kinds of fir: Firstly, duly signed FIR under 154(1). Secondly,
by virtue of section 157(1) on the information received by police(Para
97).
• 7 guidelines given (para 120)

by nimmy zachariah
 YANOB SHEIKH
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL

by nimmy zachariah
Yanob Sheikh v. State of W.B, 2013 6 SCC 428
• FactS: The accused murdered the deceased by throwing bomb at
the deceased during a scuffle during the usage of a pond. The police
officer was informed about the incident through a phone call by the
deceased’s brother and the said information was entered in General
Diary by the Police Officer and later on an FIR was registered after
visiting the place of occurrence by the Police Officer.(Para 2)

by nimmy zachariah
ISSUE AND JUDGEMENT
• Issue 1: Whether the first phone call information be treated as FIR
and the subsequent as second FIR which would be hit by sec.162 of
Crpc?
• Held: The G.D entry taken down by the police gave no details of the
commission of the crime, who committed it or how the occurrence
took place. An FIR should normally give basic essentials in relation to
occurence of an offence(Sec: 154 OF Crpc). This position has been
made clear in Manu Sharma case where the court held that cryptic
calls are not FIRs but their object is also to get the police to the spot.
The court relied on Anju Chaudhary and T.T Antony decisions and
concluded test of similarity does not apply in this case(Para 14,15) .
Hence, the subsequently registered FIR is not second FIR.
by nimmy zachariah
T.T ANTONY V. STATE OF
KERALA

by nimmy zachariah
FACTS
One of the MLA’s Raghavan(formerly member of CPI(M), made a new
party CMP. This created dislike against him in the youth wing of CPI(M).
He visited Kannur, hub of youth wing of CPI(M) which created a scuffle .
Ignoring the advice of the administrative wing he again visited Kannur
for a bank inauguration. There was a scuffle for which police were
forced to fire at the gathering which resulted in the death of people.
An inquiry was set up which found that the T.T Antony the then
executive magistrate was responsible for the police firing. FIR was
lodged against T.T Antony and many other police officials u/s 302 IPC.
Along with this a fresh investigation was order by DGP with a new FIR

by nimmy zachariah
ISSUE
• CAN 2 FIRS CO- EXIST

by nimmy zachariah
JUDGMENT
• Para 18

by nimmy zachariah
ANJU CHAUDHARY
v.
STATE OF U.P & Ors

by nimmy zachariah
FACTS
• Para 2

by nimmy zachariah
ISSUE
• Can a second FIR be registered?

by nimmy zachariah
JUDGMENT
• TEST OF SAMENESS (14,15,25)
• For more understanding read para 26

by nimmy zachariah
JOGENDRA NAHAK AND OTHER
v.
STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS
JUDGES: K.T THOMAS, D.P MOHAPATRA, U.C BANERJEE

by nimmy zachariah
FACTS OF THE CASE:
• One Balaram Mohanty and his son was attacked by the accused Jagdish Murthy
and 3 others on 12/08/ 1997. Later on Balaram Mohanty succumbed to injuries.
• The information for FIR was given by the deceased’s brother.
• After investigation the police report was laid before Magistrate against the 4
accused.
• Even the 4 appellants(para 4) were questioned by the investigation officer their
statements were not recorded u/s 161 of Crpc. For which they approched the H.C
and H.C made an order to ‘M’ to record the statements under 164 of Crpc. This
order was challenged by the deceased’s brother, for which H.C dismissed the
earlier writ petition and order for payment of cost 2500 per head for filing
frivolous matter.
• The appellants approached the S.C to order their recording of statement u/s 164
of Crpc.

by nimmy zachariah
Issue
• Whether the Magistrate has the power to record the statements of
witnesses u/s 164 of Crpc when they are not recommended by
investigating officer?

by nimmy zachariah
Arguments
Appellants
• The power under 164 is wide
enough for ‘M’ to record the
statement of a person not
necessarily accused.
• Quoted decisions of H.C (para
8,9)
by nimmy zachariah
Respondents
• Magistrate cannot record
evidence as on the request of
people who are not party to the
case as according to the police
report. Reliance cannot be laid
on decisions on H.C decision as
the question of law is not finally
heard by the Apex court
Legal Analysis
• Even though various H.C’s have made such decision that M can record the
statement of witnesses as well(para 8 and 9).The same was not considered
by S.C.
• The court analysed section 164(1),(5), 173(5) and said there is no doubt as
to the power of ‘M’ to record confession of accused but from strangers
who are not even suggested by Investigating officer cannot be given the
leave to approach ‘M’. The court also added that if such a provision is
enabled any one may go and give statement as witnesses which is
anomalous and will be an hinderance to court proceedings(para 16-19).
The accused may cite such witnesses defence witness during trial or can
request court to summon them under 311 of Crpc.

NOTE: read provisions related to confession in Evidence Act.

by nimmy zachariah
 Mahabir Singh
v.
State of Haryana
Justice K.T THOMA and Justice R.P Sethi

by nimmy zachariah
 Facts
• The deceased Anand and his friend PW1(Sandeep) was attacked by the
accused and his 3 other friends while their way back from the deceased’s
sisters house. The accused after the commission of offence stormed into a
court room and confessed before the magistrate. The recorded confession
was accepted by the Sessions Court as well as the H.C and the accused was
punished with life imprisonment. But the other three were acquitted by
Sessions Judge but H.C reversed the acquittal and convicted them u/s 302
r/w 34of IPC and sentenced them for life imprisonment. Now they have
applied for appeal before S.C.
• PW1- SANDEEP
• PW2- MAGISTARTE WHO RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF A1
• A1- RANBIR SINGH(ACCUSED)
• PW10-SANDEEP’S FATHER

by nimmy zachariah
ISSUE
• Whether the accused can directly approach a Magistrate to record
his confession?
• Whether a confession made in non-compliance of Sec. 164 is
admissible?
• Whether entry made u/s 172Crpc be used for contradiction as u/s
161Crpc r/w162 of Crpc?)para 8,9,10

by nimmy zachariah
ARGUMENTS

APPELLANT RESPONDENT
• The statement by PW1 is not • The H.C has reversed the
trustworthy has his statements acquittal on the ground of the
u/s 161 and 162 are non-usage of the statement
contradictory as in the former recorded u/s172.
pw1 has not mentioned
anything about A2-A4, while in
the latter he has mentioned
about the act done by A2-
A4(para 10)
by nimmy zachariah
Legal Analysis
The Apex Court upheld the conviction of Ranbir Sing but examined the
jurisdiction of a Magistrate to record confession of accused u/s 164.
The court added that the accused can make a confession to accused “in
the course of investigation”(para.21).(read section 26 of evidence act).
The findings of H.C regarding the use of police diary u/s 172 is
erroneous as already the statement was contradicted by the defence
counsel u/s 161 r/w162. Court is forbidden to use such entry u/s 172
as evidence and contradiction should be done as u/s 145 of the
Evidence Act(para13,14). PW1’s statement u/161 was in contradiction
to his statements made by him on court by in tune with 172 recordings.

by nimmy zachariah
Judgment
• The appeal of RANBIR was dismissed and his conviction was upheld
but the order of the conviction of the other 3 is set aside and
acquittal order of the Trial Court was restored.
• Implications of section 157 of Evidence Act is being fulfilled through
the corroboration of statements , made by PW1, PW2, PW10. Thus
there is strong evidence against Ranbir.

by nimmy zachariah
 NANDINI SATPATHY
v.
P.L DANI AND ANOTHER
Judges: JUSTICE. V.R KRISHNA IYER, JUSTICE. JASWANT SINGH, JUSTICE.
V.D TULSAPULKAR,

by nimmy zachariah
FACTS
• The former CM of Orissa Smt. Nandini Satpathy(14-06-1972to 3rd March1973)
was charged u/s179 of IPC by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance,
Cuttack for not answering the questions asked from her regarding an
accusation of acquiring wealth out of proportion to her legitimate sources of
income hinting towards a wrongful gain. (Section5(2) r/w section 5(1)(d)(e) of
Prevention of corruption act and sections 161,165,120B,109 of IPC) . Refusing to
answer public servant authorised to question.—Whoever, being legally bound to
state the truth on any subject to any public servant, refuses to answer any question
demanded of him touching that subject by such public servant in the exercise of
the legal powers of such public servant, shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may
extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
• The Magistrate issued summons to the accused to appear before the court,
aggrieved by which the appellant moved to the High Court under Art. 226 of the
constitution and S.401 of Cr.P.C. where her plea was rejected. So, she appealed
to the Supreme Court under Art. 132(1).
by nimmy zachariah
ISSUES
• Whether accused can exercise right to silence during interrogation u/s
161(2)?
• Does the bar of self-incrimination only extend to a particular offence
or does it extend to pending accusation which outside the purview of
current investigation in posse or in esse ?
• Does the shield of constitutional protection extend to stages of police
investigation or confined to the court procedure?
• Whether ‘any person’ mentioned in 161 of Crpc mentions only
accused or witnesses also?
• Extend of the use of right mentioned in Article 20(3) and 161(2).

by nimmy zachariah
Legal Analysis
• The term any person includes accused u/s 161 of Crpc. The police can
examine the accused during investigation but the prohibitive clause of
20(3) can be extended to investigation also. Right to be silent goes
beyond that case
• Confession: Admission of the guilt by the accused in as many terms or
admission of such facts which whether go on to constitute the offence.
-LORD ATKIN in PAKALA NARAYANA SWAMY CASE

by nimmy zachariah
Arguments

Appellant respondent
• The appellant argued that S. • Article 20(3) not applicable
161 Cr.P.C. does not apply to an during investigation
accused person, that questions
forming the chain of
circumstance in the
prosecution case are inclined to
establish the accusation
against the accused and thus
Art. 20 (3) might cover all such
questions for being inculpatory

by nimmy zachariah
Judgement
• Appellant has the right to be silent and can avoid questions which are self
incriminatory in nature.(nemo tenetur seipsum tenetur-A man cannot
represent himself as guilty)
• The Court held that for invoking Art. 20 (3), the party pleading must be
accused of an offence, and that he/she was subjected to a compulsion to
answer the incriminating questions asked from them, and that calling a
woman as a witness in the police station violates S. 160 (1) and influences
her testimony, and that S. 161 (2) and Art. 20 (3) immune the witness from
being forced to answer incriminatory questions at the investigation
stage. Even the Miranda guidelines extended this immunity to the stage
of investigation. The Appellant was thus directed to answer all relevant
questions which are not self-incriminatory.
• Read 425-427

by nimmy zachariah