Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO.     1856     OF     2009   

Gajoo     … Appellant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand         … Respondent

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   

Swatanter     Kumar,     J  .

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the  

High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital dated 7th April, 2008  

passed in Criminal Appeal No. 757 of 2001.    

2. We may notice the facts giving rise to the present appeal  

which in any case fall within a narrow compass.  One Smt.  

Taradevi, the deceased was married to one Gajaram. From this  

marriage, she had two children namely Rampal and Guddu  

(PW4).  After the unfortunate death of her husband Gajaram, she  

1

Page 2

used to live with her younger son Guddu.  The elder son Rampal  

was married and had been living separately with his family  

though in the same village.   Gajoo, the accused/appellant, is the  

brother-in-law of deceased Taradevi i.e. her husband’s younger  

brother.  He was also staying separate, though near the house of  

Taradevi. After the demise of her husband, there were some  

disputes regarding the division of property between the deceased,  

on the one hand, and her elder son, Rampal and brother-in-law,  

Gajoo on the other.  The dispute was related to the agricultural  

land.  It is stated that Gajoo and Rampal both did not want to  

give any land to Taradevi.    

3. On the night of 1st July, 1987, a ‘Satyanarayan Katha’  had  

been organised by Chetu Ram at his house in the village Kotda  

Kalyanpur. A number of residents of the village had gone to  

attend the Katha.  PW2, Asharam and PW3, Kewalram along with  

other people were returning back to their homes at midnight.  On  

their way back both PW2 and PW3 heard moaning sounds when  

they reached near the house of Taradevi.  PW2 and PW3 were  

carrying their torches and in the light of the torches they saw that  

accused Gajoo was armed with a Daranti, Ext. 2 with which he  

was hitting the deceased and accused Rampal had held her down,  

in the Aangan (courtyard) of her house. On being challenged, both  

2

Page 3

these witnesses were threatened by Gajoo stating that they  

should go away from there.  These two witnesses are stated to  

have neither raised any alarm nor disclosed the incident to  

anyone.  The next morning, information of the incident was given  

by PW4 to his maternal uncle Bhadu Ram, who was examined as  

PW1.  Upon receiving information, the matter was reported by  

PW1 to the police in the morning of 2nd July, 1987.   PW1 had  

lodged the written report vide Ext. Ka-1 at Police Station,  

Sahaspur at about 10.30 in the morning.   On the basis of Ext.  

Ka-1, the FIR, a Check Report, Ext. Ka-16, was prepared. Sub-

Inspector Brahma Singh, PW6 started investigation in the matter.  

He reached the place of incident and did Panchayatnama of the  

corpse of Taradevi. After performing autopsy on the body of the  

deceased, vide Ext. Ka-6, he noticed that there were wounds on  

the corpse and prepared a Report Ext. Ka-8.  Then he sent the  

body for post-mortem examination to Dehradun.  Blood stained  

soil, Ext-3 and plain soil samples, Ext-4 were collected from the  

spot, and a site plan, Ext. Ka-12 was prepared.   Dr. U.K. Chopra  

of Doon Hospital on 3rd July, 1987 prepared the Post-Mortem  

Report, Ext. Ka-10 and found the following injuries on the body of  

the deceased;

“(i) Incised wound 4 cm x ½ cm muscle deep, 1 cm below  the chin.

3

Page 4

(ii) Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm muscle deep, 2 cm below  injury No. 1.

(iii) Three abraded contusions in the middle of the neck,  sizes 1.5 cm x 1 cm; 2 cm x 1 cm; 1.5 cm x 1 cm.

(iv) Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on the back of the left elbow.

(v) Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on the back of the shoulder.

(vi) Abrasion 4 cm x 3 cm on the back of the right lumber  region.”

4. Dr. Chopra in his report Ext. Ka-10 also recorded the  

following findings:

“On internal examination, under injury No.  (iii) sub cutaneous tissue in the middle of  the neck found congested. Hyoid bone found  fractured. The larynx and trachea were  found congested. Both lungs were found  congested.”     

5. PW2 and PW3 who were examined as eye-witnesses have  

fully supported the case of the prosecution.  As already noticed,  

according to them, when they were on their way back from the  

house of Chetu Ram after taking part in ‘Satyanarain Katha’, they  

heard the cries of deceased, Taradevi.  When they reached near  

the house of Taradevi, in the light of torches that they were  

carrying, they saw that Gajoo and Rampal were throttling her in  

the Aangan (courtyard) of her house and Gajoo was holding  

4

Page 5

Daranti, Ext. 2 in his hands.   When they tried to intervene, they  

were threatened.  PW5, Gudru has proved recovery of Ext. 2  

which was used in the crime and recovery memo, Ext. Ka-11 was  

prepared.  After the death of his mother, PW4, Guddu, minor son  

of the deceased had gone to his uncle’s house to inform him  

about his mother’s death and thereafter, his uncle lodged the  

report to the police.   He stated that he too had gone to attend the  

Katha at the house of Chetu Ram and in the morning, when he  

returned, he saw his mother dead. He partly supported the case  

of prosecution as he affirmed that there was a dispute with regard  

to the land between his mother and uncle Gajoo, but stated  that  

he did not know as to who had killed his mother. Investigation  

Officer, PW6, in the witness box narrated the entire case of the  

prosecution and the investigation conducted by him.

6. The Investigating Officer filed the report before the Court in  

terms of Section 172(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, charging  

the accused/appellant Gajoo and Rampal, both under Section  

302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).  They faced trial  

before the Court of Sessions Judge and were convicted for the  

offence under Section 302 IPC vide judgment dated 2nd July,  

1990. The trial court awarded life imprisonment to the accused  

5

Page 6

Gajoo, as the accused Rampal had died during the pendency of  

the appeal.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the accused  

preferred an appeal before the High Court which came to be  

dismissed vide judgment dated 7th April, 2008.   The High Court  

confirmed both the judgment of conviction and order of sentence  

passed by the trial court, giving rise to the present appeal.

8. While impugning the judgment under appeal and praying for  

an order of acquittal, the learned counsel appearing for the  

appellant has primarily and with some emphasis contended that;

1. PW2 and PW3, the so-called eye-witnesses, are not  

genuine and are related to PW1.   Their presence at the  

place of occurrence is doubtful.

2. With the motive of grabbing the entire land, PW1 has  

falsely implicated both the accused.

3. There are clear and material contradictions between the  

medical and oral evidence i.e. Ext. Ka-10 and statements  

of PW2 and PW3, and even the cause of death is not  

clear, which essentially must go to the benefit of the  

accused.    

6

Page 7

4. The Daranti and blood stained pyjama which were  

recovered, were not sent for FSL examination and no  

serological report was obtained.  

9. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the  

appellant had laid a lot of emphasis on the statement of PW4.  

According to him, PW4 had not completely stated the case of the  

prosecution, and therefore, the accused was entitled to acquittal.

10. In the cross-examination, PW4 has made certain statements  

which no doubt, do not support the case of the prosecution.   He  

stated that he had not given the names of the murderers to his  

uncle.  The statement of PW4 has to be read collectively along  

with the statement of PW1, PW2 and PW3.  PW4 was a minor,  

when he saw his mother dead in the year 1987. His statement  

was recorded on 22nd January, 1990 i.e. more than two and a half  

years after the date of occurrence. We are unable to see any  

serious contradictions or untruthfulness in the statement of this  

witness. Even if his statement has to be evaluated as it is on  

record, he had stated the facts that when he returned from the  

house of Chetu Ram after attending the Katha, he saw his mother  

lying dead and thereafter he went and informed his uncle who  

subsequently lodged the report with the police the next morning  

and in view of the statement of PW2 and PW3, the accused were  

7

Page 8

arrested. We fail to understand as to what advantage the accused  

intends to draw from this statement of PW4. It was not the case  

of the prosecution that PW4 was an eye-witness or had seen the  

accused persons murdering his mother.   The trial court, on that  

behalf had recorded that in view of the death of his mother as  

well as the co-accused, his elder brother, Rampal, he might not  

have stated certain facts correctly before the Court. We do not see  

any reason for making such a remark in the judgment. There are  

no material or other contradictions in the statements of these four  

witnesses. PW2 is stated to be related to PW1 who in turn is  

related to the deceased. Also, PW3 is related to the deceased.  

Thus, according to the submission on behalf of the accused all of  

them become interested witnesses who have attempted to falsely  

implicate the appellant. The statement of these witnesses,  

therefore, cannot be relied upon, they being relatives and  

interested witnesses of the deceased and other witnesses.    

11. We are not impressed with this argument. The appreciation  

of evidence of such related witnesses has been discussed by this  

Court in its various judgments.  In the case of Dalip Singh v. State  

of Punjab [(1954 SCR 145], while rejecting the argument that  

witnesses who are close-relatives of the victim should not be  

relied upon, the Court held as under:-

8

Page 9

“26. A witness is normally to be considered  independent unless he or she springs from  sources which are likely to be tainted and that  usually means unless the witness has cause,  such as enmity against the accused, to wish to  implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close  relative would be the last to screen the real  culprit and falsely implicate an innocent  person. It is true, when feelings run high and  there is personal cause for enmity, that there  is a tendency to drag in an innocent person  against whom a witness has a grudge along  with the guilty, but foundation must be laid  for such a criticism and the mere fact of  relationship far from being a foundation is  often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we  are not attempting any sweeping  generalisation. Each case must be judged on  its own facts. Our observations are only made  to combat what is so often put forward in  cases before us as a general rule of prudence.  There is no such general rule. Each case must  be limited to and be governed by its own  facts.”

12. Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of State of  

A.P. v. S. Rayappa and Others [(2006) 4 SCC 512].   The court  

observed that it is now almost a fashion that public is reluctant to  

appear and depose before the court, especially in criminal cases  

and the cases for that reason itself are dragged for years and  

years.   The Court also stated the principle that, “by now, it is a  

well-established principle of law that testimony of a witness  

otherwise inspiring confidence cannot be discarded on the ground  

9

Page 10

that he being a relation of the deceased is an interested witness.  

A close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be termed as  

interested witness. The term interested postulates that the person  

concerned must have some direct interest in seeing the accused  

person being convicted somehow or the other either because of  

animosity or for some other reasons.”

13. This Court has also taken the view that related witness does  

not necessarily mean or is equivalent to an interested witness.   A  

witness may be called ‘interested’  only when he or she derives  

some benefit from the result of litigation; in the decree in a civil  

case, or in seeing an accused person punished. {Ref. State of Uttar  

Pradesh v. Kishanpal and Others [(2008) 16 SCC 73]}  

14. In the case of Darya Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab [AIR  

1965 SC 328], the Court held as under:-

“6....On principle, however, it is difficult  to accept the plea that if a witness is shown to  be a relative of the deceased and it is also shown  that he shared the hostility of the victim towards  the assailant, his evidence can never be  accepted unless it is corroborated on material  particulars.”

15. Once, the presence of PW2 and PW3 is shown to be natural,  

then to doubt their statement would not be a correct approach in  

10

Page 11

law. It has unequivocally come on record through various  

witnesses, including PW4, that there was a ‘Satyanarayan Katha’  

at the house of Chetu Ram which was attended by various  

villagers. It was on their way back at midnight when PW2 and  

PW3 had seen the occurrence in dark with the help of the torches  

that they were carrying.   The mere fact that PW2 happens to be  

related to PW1 and to the deceased, would not result in doubting  

the statement of these witnesses which otherwise have credence,  

are reliable and are duly corroborated by other evidence.   In such  

cases, it is only the members of the family who come forward to  

depose. Once it is established that their depositions do not suffer  

from material contradictions, are trustworthy and in consonance  

with the above-stated principles, the Courts would not be justified  

in overlooking such valuable piece of evidence.

16. Coming to the next submission on behalf of the accused that  

there is contradiction between the ocular and medical evidence, it  

is contended that according to PW2 and PW3, the deceased was  

killed by use the of Daranti that the accused/appellant Gajoo was  

carrying, while according to the medical evidence, the death  

resulted from asphyxia. This argument is based upon misreading  

of the evidence.   PW2 and PW3 had seen in the dark i.e. in the  

limited light of the torches that they were carrying, that Rampal  

11

Page 12

was holding the deceased while Gajoo was inflicting injuries on  

her body with the help of Daranti.   As per the Post Mortem  

Report, Ext. Ka-10, two injuries have been noticed under the chin  

which are; incised wound 4 cm x ½ cm muscle deep, incised  

wound 5 cm x 1 cm muscle deep and the second injury is just  

below the first injury. Injury No. (iii) recorded in the post mortem  

report is very material. According to the doctor, there were three  

abraded contusions of different sizes, in the middle of the neck.  

The doctor has specifically recorded that both lungs were  

congested, the larynx and trachea were found congested and the  

expert judgment of the doctor based on these factors was that  

death occurred due to asphyxia because of strangulation.

17. Rampal was pushing down the deceased on the earth in the  

Aangan while Gajoo had inflicted the injuries.  The injuries  

evidently were inflicted by accused Gajoo holding Daranti in one  

hand and holding the neck of the deceased with the other hand.  

It was the pressing of her neck and body to the earth by both the  

accused of much greater strength than the deceased, that  

resulted in her death.

18. We have also noticed that there is no variation between the  

medical evidence and the ocular evidence, and once they are co-

jointly read, it does not falsify either the statement of the  

12

Page 13

witnesses, PW2 and PW3 or the Post-Mortem Report, Ext. Ka-10.  

In fact, both of them must be read as complimentary to each  

other.   Even if for the sake of argument we assume that there is  

some variation, still, it would be so immaterial and  

inconsequential that it would not give any benefit to the accused.  

It is a settled principle by a series of decisions of this Court that  

while appreciating the variation between the medical evidence  

and ocular evidence, primacy is given to the oral evidence of the  

witnesses.  Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court  

in the case of Kapildeo Mandal and Ors. v. State of Bihar [(2008)  

16 SCC 99], State of U.P. v. Krishan Gopal [(1998) 4 SCC 302],  

Bhajan Lal @ Harbhajan Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana [(2011) 7  

SCC 421].

19. Now, we turn to the last submission on behalf of the  

accused that no serologist report was obtained in relation to the  

Daranti, Ext. 2 and blood stained pyjama, Ext. Ka 5, and  

therefore, the prosecution case should fail.  This argument does  

not impress us at all.   No doubt both these exhibits were not sent  

to the laboratory for obtaining serologist report, but the absence  

thereof per se would not give any advantage to the accused.   This  

is merely a defect in investigation.   A defective investigation,  

unless affects the very root of the prosecution case and is  

13

Page 14

prejudicial to the accused, should not be an aspect of material  

consideration by the court.   PW5 has duly proved the recovery of  

Daranti, Ext. 2 and the blood stained pyjama, Ext. Ka 5 and has  

duly stood the test of cross-examination in court.  Both these  

articles were recovered by the investigating officer Brahma Singh,  

PW6 and the recoveries have been duly established before the  

court.   The recoveries having been proved and the case of the  

prosecution being duly supported by two eye-witnesses, PW2 and  

PW3 and two witnesses, PW4 and PW5 who were present  

immediately after the occurrence, have proved the case of the  

prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt.

20. In regard to the defective investigation, this Court in the  

case of Dayal Singh and Others. v. State of Uttaranchal [2012 (7)  

SCALE 165]  while dealing with the cases of omissions and  

commissions by the investigating officer, and duty of the Court in  

such cases held as under:-

“22. Now, we may advert to the duty of the  Court in such cases.  In the case of Sathi Prasad  v. The State of U.P. [(1972) 3 SCC 613], this Court  stated that it is well settled that if the police  records become suspect and investigation  perfunctory, it becomes the duty of the Court to  see if the evidence given in Court should be relied  upon and such lapses ignored.  Noticing the  possibility of investigation being designedly  defective, this Court in the case of Dhanaj Singh  @ Shera & Ors. v. State of Punjab [(2004) 3 SCC  

14

Page 15

654], held, “in the case of a defective investigation  the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the  evidence.  But it would not be right in acquitting  an accused person solely on account of the  defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into  the hands of the investigating officer if the  investigation is designedly defective.”

23. Dealing with the cases of omission and  commission, the Court in the case of Paras  Yadav v. State of Bihar [AIR 1999 SC 644],  enunciated the principle, in conformity with the  previous judgments, that if the lapse or omission  is committed by the investigating agency,  negligently or otherwise, the prosecution evidence  is required to be examined de hors such  omissions to find out whether the said evidence is  reliable or not.  The contaminated conduct of  officials should not stand in the way of evaluating  the evidence by the courts, otherwise the  designed mischief would be perpetuated and  justice would be denied to the complainant party.  In the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr.  Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. [(2006) 3 SCC 374],  the Court noticed the importance of the role of  witnesses in a criminal trial.  The importance and  primacy of the quality of trial process can be  observed from the words of Bentham, who states  that witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice.  The Court issued a caution that in such  situations, there is a greater responsibility of the  court on the one hand and on the other the  courts must seriously deal with persons who are  involved in creating designed investigation.  The  Court held that legislative measures to emphasize  prohibition against tampering with witness,  victim or informant have become the imminent  and inevitable need of the day.  Conducts     which    illegitimately     affect     the     presentation     of     evidence    in     proceedings     before     the     Courts     have     to     be    seriously     and     sternly     dealt     with.      There     should    not     be     any     undue     anxiety     to     only     protect     the    interest     of     the     accused.      That     would     be     unfair,     as    noted     above,     to     the     needs     of     the     society.      On     the    

15

Page 16

contrary,     efforts     should     be     to     ensure     fair     trial    where     the     accused     and     the     prosecution     both     get     a    fair     deal.      Public     interest     in     proper     administration    of     justice     must     be     given     as     much     importance     if    not     more,     as     the     interest     of     the     individual    accused.      The     courts     have     a     vital     role     to     play  .  (Emphasis supplied)

24. With the passage of time, the law also  developed and the dictum of the Court  emphasized that in a criminal case, the fate of  proceedings cannot always be left entirely in the  hands of the parties. Crime is a public wrong, in  breach and violation of public rights and duties,  which affects the community as a whole and is  harmful to the society in general.  

25. Reiterating the above principle, this Court  in the case of National Human Rights Commission  v. State of Gujarat [(2009) 6 SCC 767], held as  under:

“The concept of fair trial entails  familiar triangulation of interests of  the accused, the victim and the  society and it is the community that  acts through the State and  prosecuting agencies. Interest of  society is not to be treated  completely with disdain and as  persona non grata. The courts have  always been considered to have an  overriding duty to maintain public  confidence in the administration of  justice—often referred to as the duty  to vindicate and uphold the ‘majesty  of the law’. Due administration of  justice has always been viewed as a  continuous process, not confined to  determination of the particular case,  protecting its ability to function as a  court of law in the future as in the  case before it. If a criminal court is  to be an effective instrument in  

16

Page 17

dispensing justice, the Presiding  Judge must cease to be a spectator  and a mere recording machine by  becoming a participant in the trial  evincing intelligence, active interest  and elicit all relevant materials  necessary for reaching the correct  conclusion, to find out the truth, and  administer justice with fairness and  impartiality both to the parties and  to the community it serves. The  courts administering criminal justice  cannot turn a blind eye to vexatious  or oppressive conduct that has  occurred in relation to proceedings,  even if a fair trial is still possible,  except at the risk of undermining the  fair name and standing of the judges  as impartial and independent  adjudicators.”

26. In the case of State of Karnataka v. K.  Yarappa Reddy [2000 SCC (Crl.) 61], this  Court occasioned to consider the similar  question of defective investigation as to  whether any manipulation in the station  house diary by the Investigating Officer could  be put against the prosecution case. This  Court, in Paragraph 19, held as follows:

“19. But can the above finding (that  the station house diary is not  genuine) have any inevitable bearing  on the other evidence in this case? If  the other evidence, on scrutiny, is  found credible and acceptable,  should the Court be influenced by the  machinations demonstrated by the  Investigating Officer in conducting  investigation or in preparing the  records so unscrupulously? It can be  a guiding principle that as  investigation is not the solitary area  for judicial scrutiny in a criminal  

17

Page 18

trial, the conclusion of the Court in  the case cannot be allowed to depend  solely on the probity of investigation.  It is well-nigh settled that even if the  investigation is illegal or even  suspicious the rest of the evidence  must be scrutinised independently of  the impact of it. Otherwise the  criminal trial will plummet to the  level of the investigating officers  ruling the roost. The court must have  predominance and pre-eminence in  criminal trials over the action taken  by the investigation officers. Criminal  Justice should not be made a  casualty for the wrongs committed by  the investigating officers in the case.  In other words, if the court is  convinced that the testimony of a  witness to the occurrence is true the  court is free to act on it albeit the  investigating officer's suspicious role  in the case.”

27. In Ram Bali v. State of Uttar  Pradesh [(2004) 10 SCC 598], the judgment  in Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. [(1995) 5 SCC  518] was reiterated and this Court had  observed that ‘in case of defective  investigation the court has to be circumspect  while evaluating the evidence. But it would  not be right in acquitting an accused person  solely on account of the defect; to do so  would tantamount to playing into the hands  of the investigation officer if the investigation  is designedly defective’. 28. Where our criminal justice system  provides safeguards of fair trial and innocent  till proven guilty to an accused, there it also  contemplates that a criminal trial is meant  for doing justice to all, the accused, the  society and a fair chance to prove to the  prosecution.  Then alone can law and order  

18

Page 19

be maintained.  The Courts do not merely  discharge the function to ensure that no  innocent man is punished, but also that a  guilty man does not escape.  Both are public  duties of the judge.  During the course of the  trial, the learned Presiding Judge is expected  to work objectively and in a correct  perspective.  Where the prosecution attempts  to misdirect the trial on the basis of a  perfunctory or designedly defective  investigation, there the Court is to be deeply  cautious and ensure that despite such an  attempt, the determinative process is not  sub-served.  For truly attaining this object of  a ‘fair trial’, the Court should leave no stone  unturned to do justice and protect the  interest of the society as well.

29. This brings us to an ancillary issue as  to how the Court would appreciate the  evidence in such cases.  The possibility of  some variations in the exhibits, medical and  ocular evidence cannot be ruled out.  But it  is not that every minor variation or  inconsistency would tilt the balance of justice  in favour the accused.  Of course, where  contradictions and variations are of a serious  nature, which apparently or impliedly are  destructive of the substantive case sought to  be proved by the prosecution, they may  provide an advantage to the accused.  The  Courts, normally, look at expert evidence  with a greater sense of acceptability, but it is  equally true that the courts are not  absolutely guided by the report of the  experts, especially if such reports are  perfunctory, unsustainable and are the result  of a deliberate attempt to misdirect the  prosecution.  In Kamaljit Singh v. State of  Punjab [2004 Cri.LJ 28], the Court, while  dealing with discrepancies between ocular  and medical evidence, held, “It is trite law  that minor variations between medical  evidence and ocular evidence do not take  

19

Page 20

away the primacy of the latter.  Unless  medical evidence in its term goes so far as to  completely rule out all possibilities  whatsoever of injuries taking place in the  manner stated by the eyewitnesses, the  testimony of the eyewitnesses cannot be  thrown out.”

30. Where the eye witness account is found  credible and trustworthy, medical opinion  pointing to alternative possibilities may not  be accepted as conclusive.  The expert  witness is expected to put before the Court  all materials inclusive of the data which  induced him to come to the conclusion and  enlighten the court on the technical aspect of  the case by examining the terms of science,  so that the court, although not an expert,  may form its own judgment on those  materials after giving due regard to the  expert’s opinion, because once the expert  opinion is accepted, it is not the opinion of  the medical officer but that of the Court. {Plz.  See Madan Gopal Kakad v. Naval Dubey &  Anr. [(1992) 2 SCR 921: (1992) 3 SCC 204]}.”

21. The present case, when examined in light of the above  

principles, makes it clear that the defect in the investigation or  

omission on the part of the investigating officer, cannot prove to  

be of any advantage to the accused.  No doubt the investigating  

officer ought to have obtained serologist’s report both in respect of  

Ext. 2 and Ext. 5 and matched it with the blood group of the  

deceased.   This is a definite lapse on the part of the investigating  

officer which cannot be overlooked by the Court, despite the fact  

that it finds no merit in the contention of the accused.

20

Page 21

22. For the reasons afore-recorded, we dismiss this appeal being  

without any merit.  However, we direct the Director General of  

Police, Uttarakhand, to take disciplinary action against Sub-

Inspector, Brahma Singh, PW6, whether he is in service or has  

since retired, for such serious lapse in conducting investigation.

23. The Director General of Police shall take a disciplinary  

action against the said officer and if he has since retired, the  

action shall be taken with regard to deduction/stoppage of his  

pension in accordance with the service rules. The ground of  

limitation, if stated in the relevant rules, will not operate as the  

inquiry is being conducted under the direction of this Court.

………...….…………......................J.                                           (Swatanter Kumar)

………...….…………......................J.                                          (Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla)

New Delhi, September 13, 2012  

21