Investigation (Part 4)

Now once he's arrested, the same rehearsed story — sir, recovery has to be made from the accused — first remand is granted. The accused is a habitual, cunning fellow, give him further remand — I've already given you a detailed lecture on remand. They keep taking remand, remand — on the thirteenth day, sir, some revelation dawns on the accused, and the accused's statement is recorded: I made a mistake, at such-and-such time I committed such-and-such incident, I can get the murder weapon recovered — this doesn't happen on the first day, not the second day, not the fifth day — it's the day before the remand is due to end, before the fourteen days are complete, that his conscience awakens.

Now the police adopt such a clumsy style — on the accused's disclosure, we, along with two policemen, took the accused; walking along, the accused opened the door of his house; after opening the door of the house, he went into his living room; in the living room, under the charpai, there lay a galvanized tin box — I've never seen such a tin box to this day — he took a pistol out of that tin box and handed it over to us. Oh, well — on the day you arrested him, who told you that investigating isn't its own thing, or is there some law stopping you from searching his residential room on the day you arrested him — why didn't you search his home, what stopped you? Then more blunders — first of all, they never take a private person from the area; and if a private person is to be included, they should include one from among the prosecution's existing witnesses, because everything happens sitting in the police station, nothing is happening at the actual scene, nothing like that is actually taking place.

Now the funnier thing is — an accused is charged with dacoity and murder. Now they say, first remand was taken, that recovery is to be made from him; four days later, they come and it's written, sir, he disclosed two sets of gold jewellery from his home, that he can recover the gold, it's lying at home — they go to the house, they open it up, sir — and, following that same same chain, from a tin box lying under the charpai, they took it out and handed it over. Now, four days later, what happens — from the same accused, the same house, the murder weapon is also being recovered. Ask someone — what law stopped you, when you'd already gone to that house once, from searching the whole house? These are the points, these are the matters — I say, on investigation, I could start giving you two-, three-hour lectures every day, it wouldn't end — matters differ in every case.

What should you focus on? You should focus on this — whatever evidence you have, whether you consider it weak, whether you consider it strong, give it to the police; if they don't take it, get it delivered through the court. Don't hold anything back, don't hide anything — if you're telling the truth, keep this in mind: even in today's society, I say this with conviction, with eighteen years of experience, even today, if you're innocent, believe me, you will get justice — it may come late, delayed, but you will definitely get justice, if you're telling the truth — and if you're telling the truth, don't hide any evidence.

Now matters differ in investigation, every case's matters differ — if you're dealing with documentary evidence, meaning fraud and forgery, then handwriting experts, fingerprint experts, all these matters come in. If it's an adultery/rape case, DNA testing plays a big role in it — these are all matters that are part of investigation.

Now, a common misconception circulates in our profession — sir, the investigating officer has dismissed the case. Well, an investigating officer cannot dismiss a case — his job is to investigate, gather evidence, and in light of that evidence, verify it, nullify it, rebut it, compile it — whatever the situation is, that's his investigation. The courts say the investigating officer can't even give an opinion as to who's guilty and who's innocent. The investigating officer's job is to gather evidence and investigate eyewitness evidence — let the court draw the conclusion as to who's innocent, who's guilty — but because a misconception is prevalent, the investigating officer gives his own opinion that, in my investigation, this person is guilty or innocent.

Now, where does a case actually come from — after registering the FIR, the SHO sends it to the investigation wing; once investigation is complete in the investigation wing, it goes back to the SHO; once it goes back to the SHO, the SHO will look at the entire file; after looking at the entire file, he will raise objections about any deficiencies or unlawful steps in it, then send it back — which doesn't actually happen; let me tell you plainly. The 'challani zimni' [final case-diary entry preceding the challan], after which the challan is drawn up — the SHO writes it, but the investigating officer himself writes the challani zimni too, puts the SHO's name at the top starting with the SHO's name, and gives it to the SHO. The investigating officer himself formulates the 173 report too; only the SHO's signature goes under it; that's done, and it's sent onward to the DSP, from the DSP to the SSP, from the SSP to the prosecution, and the prosecution presents it to the court.

The investigating officer cannot dismiss a case. The authority to prepare a cancellation report lies only with the SHO. And it's not that once the SHO prepares a cancellation report, the case is cancelled. The SHO will prepare the cancellation report and send it to his senior officer, the DSP or SSP. He will read it and be satisfied that the cancellation report is properly made; then he will forward it to the prosecution; the prosecution will present that cancellation report before the magistrate; if the magistrate agrees with it, the case will be cancelled; and if he does not agree, he will treat it as a challan and summon the accused.

I hope I've shed some light on investigation that will be useful to you.