Introduction to police Investigation
It is generally seen that when the police begins investigation into a criminal case that has been reported, it depends substantially on the information gathered either from the scene of crime or the circumstances attendant thereupon or the facts collected from the individuals involved, be they witnesses who are directly privy to the necessary background facts or otherwise conversant with the relevant material or even the persons who are suspected (or accused) to be involved. The inputs received from the last mentioned category – that is, the suspects or the persons accused – are, of course, generally inadmissible unless they can be introduced in evidence, if so permissible, illustratively under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. After the investigating agency has gathered all the requisite background facts, and has collected sufficient evidence to substantiate it during inquiry or trial before the criminal court, it presents its case in the form of a report under Section 173 Cr. PC (” chargesheet “) seeking trial of such persons whose involvement is borne out, in its opinion, from the material submitted therewith. This, ideally, would be a stage where the investigating agency (from which the prosecution takes over) presents its case in entirety leaving out, in the interest of fairness of the process, nothing from the gaze of the court. But, experience also shows that during the course of the trial, some of the facets of the case are either rendered redundant or irrelevant (for example on account of duplication or being repetitive) and, therefore, fall on the side making it unnecessary for the prosecutor to add to the formal production of evidence in such regard, this particularly in cases where the prosecution rests its case on direct evidence.
It is not the requirement of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove each nugget of the facts as alleged in the beginning by the charge-sheet in order to succeed. The court is eventually called upon to take a view, and give its decision, on all the facts which are actually proved during the trial. In case the prosecution has omitted to bring on record formal proof of certain facts which the court perceives to be crucial, there are ample powers in the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for further evidence in such respect. [see, Artile on Sections 311 and 391 Cr. PC).
A criminal case is not like a jigsaw puzzle, such that it cannot succeed unless all the pieces of the maze are in place. This is not so even in cases founded on circumstantial evidence, what to say of cases supported by direct evidence. If the prosecution does not have any direct proof and depends on proof of circumstances, it has to bring home, to the satisfaction of the court, all such circumstances that collectively form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The prosecution may have begun the quest with a large volume of facts but may end up proving less than what those gamut of circumstances were and, yet, if the circumstances that are proved beyond all reasonable doubts and are sufficient to point towards the complicity of the accused, a conviction may still be called for on such basis; this, notwithstanding the fact that some of the circumstances have remained unproved .
Introduction to police Evidence
Section 24 of the Evidence Act contains a clear prohibition against consideration of any statement made by an accused (or suspect) to the police during investigation. Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act add further to the said very cardinal principle. Section 27 of the Evidence Act carves out a very small window for some part of such statement to be looked into. It says in clear terms that only “so much of such information” as has been received from the accused by the police “may be proved” as “relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered”. It is expected that a fair investigating police officer would scrupulously record whatever is disclosed to him by the suspect during interrogation. If such statement (or information thereby given) leads to discovery of any fact only so much of the statement (or information) may be presented to the court as evidence as is relevant and admissible. But, the disclosure statement in its entirety cannot be looked into by the court. To use such statement, that too in entirety, as the touchstone to ascertain the veracity of the prosecution evidence is something unheard of – totally unacceptable. Conversely, the prosecution evidence cannot also be used by the court to record a satisfaction that the statement given by the suspect to the police (noted for such exercise in entirety) even beyond what is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was truthful or otherwise. Such reasoning, to my mind, is taboo and cannot be adopted.
Police Station (Section 2 (s) CrPC)
“Police station” means any post or place declared, generally or specially, by the State Government, to be a police station, and includes any local area specified by the State Government in this behalf;
According to interpretation clause of the Police Act (Act V of 1861) the word “Police” is defined as “the word Police shall include all persons who shall be enrolled under this Act.” According to Police Regulation Bengal interpretation clause the word “Officer” includes men. In section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the word “Police Officer” is mentioned as a legal term while police personnel is making an investigation of a case as per CrPC.
Officer-in-charge (Section 2 (o) CrPC)
“Officer-in-charge of a police station” includes, when the officer-in-charge of a police station is absent from the station-house or unable from illness or other cause to perform his duties, the police officer present at the station-house who is next in rank to such officer and is above the rank of a constable or, when the State Government so directs, any other police officer so present.
Police Officers Always on Duty
i) Every Police officer not on leave or under suspension shall, for all purposes be considered to be always on duty and may at any time be deployed in any part of the state. The State Government shall, however, ensure the grant of one day off in a week to all police personnel or make provision of appropriate compensatory benefits in lieu of such weekly off, if under extraordinary situations the same cannot be granted to them.
ii) No police officer shall abdicate his duties or withdraw himself from his place of posting or deployment, without proper authorization. No police officer shall engage in
any other employment or officer of profit whatsoever, other than his duties under the Act.
The guidelines for the code of conduct for the police were issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and communicated to Chief Secretaries of all States/ Union Territories and Heads of Central Police Organizations on July 4, 1985.
- FIR and starting investigation
- Recording Information in General Diary and forgetting it
- Preliminary Inquiry before registering FIR
- General Diary and Keeping all Business information of station
- Receiving A phone Call by Duty Officer
- Sending FIR to Magistrate
- Information to Beat office/officer
- Recording FIR by Lady Police
- False or Ghost FIR
- Counter FIR
- Non-Registering FIR
- Fixing appointment with SHO
- Registering FIR against unknown persons
Arrest, Custody, and Remand
- Detention In Thana
- Arrest without warrant
- Illegal arrest
- Death of the Accused in Custody
INVESTIGATION BY POLICE
In Criminal Justice System, Police have the Legislature, the Judiciary, the Prosecution and the Correctional Services Department as its partners. Police may take help from State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL), Finger Print Bureau (FPB), Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD), State Drugs Control and Research Laboratory (SDCRL) to inspire the investigation.
Important Supreme Court decisions
Investigation by Higher Police officials-If he has reasons to suspect that police has joined hands with other side and is not properly investigating complaint, then an application under Cr. P.C. sec 173(8) can be made to trial court. Trial Court will then direct investigation by Higher Police officials[ Supreme Court of India Azija Begum vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 12 January, 2012]
Access to justice–K.T. Plantation v. State of Karnataka, 2011 (8) SCALE 583 where it was held that the rule of law is a basic feature of our Constitution. It was also submitted that the Supreme Court had in Tashi Delek Gaming Solutions Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and others, (2006) 1 SCC 442 held that access to justice is a human right.
Further Investigation: Further investigation after taking cognizance[Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel Vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel and others] and after framing charges, in a given case may be ordered only on the request of the investigating agency and that too, in circumstances warranting further investigation on the detection of material evidence only to secure fair investigation and trial, the life purpose of the adjudication in hand.[Athul Rao Versus State of Karnataka & Anr August 18, 2017 ]
Authority: ASI- Petty Cases-punishment upto thre years- Magisterial cases SI- Henious crimes- above thre years- sessions cases
Government of West Bengal [vide Home (Police) Dept. Order No 4282-PL, No. 4283-PL & No. 4284-PL Dt- 23.12.2009] has empowered the Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police to undertake investigation under sub section (1) of Section 157 CrPC together with powers U/S161 & 174 of CrPC as such,. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below.
“All the Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police can legally Investigate Criminal cases under IPC including S.R. Cases and Cases under heinous section of law. But at present the Investigation of cases by the ASIs have been restricted to Investigation of petty cognizable cases triable by Magistrate of 1st Class or any other Magistrate. However the ASIs who have gained considerable experience in investigating cases they may be allowed to investigate heinous cognizable cases and cases triable by Court of Sessions”.
- Calling Accused in Thana
- Calling Witness In Thana
- Asking Documents from Informant and Witness
- Investigation by SHO
- Investigation by Deputed Subordinate Officer
- Investigation By Superion Police Officer
- Transfering Investigation to CID
- Transfering Investigation to CBI, NIA
- Investigation of Rape case
- Investigation Murder Case
- Sending Dead body for Inquest
- Sending Deadbody for Post Mortem
- Preserving Viscera
- Preserving forensic Material
- Sending forensic material to laboratory
- Foreignsic Investigation
- Dog tracking Investigation
- Discovery of Weapon ,Body and Etc by the Information supplied by Accused
- Preparing and signing Memo by IO and Independent witness
- Case Diary
- Investigation of Non-Cognisable Cases
- Responsibility of Police for Unfair or Malicious Investigation
- Withholding evidence by Police
- Inspecting Crime spot
- Preparing Panchanama
- Recording Dying Declaration: Nirbhaya Case Study
- Analysis of Circumstances and Stitching together to complete the Chain
- Sending witness to magistrate for recording statement under 164
- Examining Witnesses
Identification of Accused Person
Post Charge Sheet responsibilities by IO
- Interview with Prosecution Lawyer
- Protection of Witness
- Keeping information of progress of Case
- Protection of approver
- Death of the Informant
- Death of the Accused
Role of Police in MotorAccident Claim Cases
I Accident Information Report (AIR)
Directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court to Director Generals of Police of all
States in respect of AIR
Directions of Delhi High Court to Police
Directions of Delhi High Court to Police with regard to accidents
between the period 1994- 2009
Steps undertaken by Delhi Police
II Procedure for Investigation of Motor Accident Cases by Police
III Prosecution of Owner/Driver of Uninsured Vehicles
IV Prosecution of Holders/Forgers of Fake Driving Licences
Directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court
Directions of Delhi High Court to deal with fake driving licences
V Checklist of Delhi Police for Compliance of Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure
Public Services from the Thana level
1. Police Stations: To maintain Law and Order and to prevent/ detect crime.
2. Traffic Police: Striving to regulate traffic under constraints of manpower and logistics.
3. VIP Protection: To ensure safety and security of those ‘who matter a lot’.
4. 100 Dial: A direct and dedicated dialing emergency service.
5. Community Service: To serve beyond the call of duty by involving ourselves in the life of the community.
6. To keep social statistic: Keeping statistics of Lawyers, Doctors, Medical facilities , clubs and charitable societies, hotels, water sources, Burning ghats etc and nature of demography.
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence was constituted on 4th December 1957, for dealing exclusively with the work relating to the collection and study of information on smuggling activities and the deployment of all anti-smuggling resources at the all India level, besides arranging training for the intelligence and Investigation officers of the Custom Houses and Central Excise Collectorates deployed on similar work.