Investigating Officer must examine all evidence to bring out truth, not just material supporting prosecution: Bombay High Court

An investigating officer's responsibility is to unearth the truth and he should examine and collect all material/ evidence in relation to the case and not just evidence which supports the case of the prosecution, the Bombay High Court recently said [Nikhil Ashokrao Waghmare vs State of Maharashtra]..Referring to Section 2(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) which defines 'investigation', a division bench of Justices Vinay Joshi and MW Chandwani said that the CrPC nowhere says that the investigating officer while investigating a case, need to rely only on evidence which supports the case of the prosecution. "The statute no where says that collection of evidence shall be in support of the case of the prosecution. No doubt, the investigating officer shall be given complete and full freedom to carry the investigation in accordance with law. The material which is sought to be produced by the accused may or may not help the investigating agency, but, it is totally unacceptable that he shall not look into the same," the bench observed.The bench said it did not know of any provision of law which precludes the investigating officer to go through the material if he finds it relevant and germane to arrive at the truth."Since the fair investigation and discovery of truth is the ultimate object, the investigating officer has to unearth the truth and bring the real facts on record. It is a requirement of fair trial that there is fair investigation, and there can be no fair investigation if the investigating officer does not take into consideration all relevant material which is desirable for the purpose of investigation," the bench said in its October 18 order.Needless to say that the CrPC does not envisage one sided investigation aimed at collecting material only to substantiate the case of prosecution, the Court underlined..It was hearing an application filed by an accused seeking a direction to the investigating officer of the case to consider the WhatsApp chats of his deceased wife.As per facts of the case, the accused's wife died by suicide in February 2022, which was within three months of their marriage. The applicant and his family were booked under Section 498A (cruelty) and Section 306 (abetment to suicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).However, the applicant in August 2023 submitted WhatsApp chats of the deceased, claiming that it will give a 'clear idea' to the Police as to what had happened. The applicant claimed that the said chats would specifically show that there was no 'prima facie' case against him and his family. However, the investigating officer refused to rely on the said material.The applicant contended that the chats sought to be produced are pivotal in nature, which would assist the investigating officer to arrive at a right conclusion. .Having heard the contention, the bench reiterated that the essence of criminal justice system is to reach the truth. The underlying principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proven guilty with requisite standard of proof, the Court said."Fair, impartial and transparent criminal investigation is sine qua non for ensuring fair trial for the accused. The process of fair investigation and fair trial are as much necessary for the victim, as it is also equally necessary for the accused. The investigating officer is, therefore, under an obligation to carry fair investigation with a sole moto to reach to the truth," the bench underscored.With these observations, the bench disposed of the petition with a direction to the investigating officer to take into consideration the WhatsApp chats of the deceased."However, it is left to the discretion and wisdom of the investigating officer to rely or not to rely on the said documents produced by applicants. Needless to say that we hope and expect that the investigating officer shall carry the investigation in a fair manner," the Court said..Senior Advocate SV Manohar along with Advocate RR Vyas appeared for the petitioner.Additional Public Prosecutor MJ Khan represented the State.Advocate DN Mugdale represented the complainant..[Read Judgment]