Noticing a serious lapse by both the investigation officer (IO) and the public prosecutor (PP) in conducting a trial of a murder case, the Karnataka High Court has directed the State Police Chief and the Department of Prosecution to put a rider on all the IOs and the PPs that legal proceedings will be initiated against them if they do not conduct the trial in criminal cases in accordance with the law.
The court also directed the heads of the police and the prosecution departments to take appropriate measures to train the IOs and PPs by conducting refresher courses or seminars, and to take serious action if there is any lapse by the officers concerned.
A Division Bench comprising Justice K.N. Phaneendra and Justice K. Somashekar issued the direction while confirming the July 1, 2014, order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural district, in convicting Asif Pasha on the charge of murdering one Sulthan, who was murdered on February 17, 2011, in Hoskote police limits. “In this particular case, the IO, though the records were available before the court, has not even bothered to look into the statement of the prosecution witness (PW)-4 recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C [by the police], before answering the question put to him. This type of attitude of the police and the IOs who are at the helm of affairs, requires to be deprecated...,” the Bench observed.
The Bench pointed out that the PP was also not diligent in properly conducting this case as he had failed to re-examine or cross examine the PW-4 to clarify the situation when the IO had said that the statement of PW-4 against the accused is not there in the recorded statement even after the PW-4 had deposed during the trial that he had given a statement before police and the contents of his evidence against the accused finds a place in his statement recorded by the police.
The court directed that all the IOs, before coming to the court, should refresh themselves with regard to the probe conducted by them and also statement of witnesses given before them, and contradictions and omissions which are elicited during the course of the evidence of the witnesses, so as to answer the questions that may be put to them by the defence counsel during the cross-examination.
Observing that the court has noticed in many cases that PPs have mechanically or casually conducted cross-examinations in the cases where witnesses had turned hostile to the prosecution, the Bench said that “the PPs should not act in a very casual or mechanical manner, but should be alive and alert when the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are recorded, particularly during the course of cross-examination.”
