Victim of crime cannot be penalized for procedural irregularities committed by investigating officer: Kerala High Court

The victim of a crime should not be penalized for any procedural irregularities or technical defects committed by the investigating officer of the police, the Kerala High Court recently observed [Noel Joseph v State of Kerala & Ors.]..Justice Sophy Thomas made the observation in a case where a man accused of molesting an 18-year-old girl challenged the criminal case filed against him on the ground that it was investigated by police officers who did not have the territorial jurisdiction to do so. "The petitioner (accused) has no case that any prejudice was caused to him by the investigation conducted by Vizhinjam Police. Moreover, the victim cannot be penalised for the procedural irregularities or technical defects if any committed by the investigating officer," the Court said. .Pertinently, the Court also clarified that there is no absolute prohibition on the police on investigating crimes committed beyond the local territorial jurisdiction."There is no absolute prohibition that the offence committed beyond the local territorial jurisdiction cannot be investigated or enquired into by an officer in charge of a police station who recorded the information and registered the FIR.".In the case at hand, the accused is said to have taken a young girl, who hailed from Thiruvananthapuram, to various places in Ernakulam where she was sexually assaulted and raped by him and his friends. She was later abandoned at a train station in Ernakulam. .The crime was subsequently investigated by the Vizhinjam Police (Thiruvananthapuram district), although the trial was eventually transferred to a trial court in Ernakulam..The accused (petitioner) later challenged the criminal case against him on the ground that Vizhinjam Police lacked the territorial jurisdiction to investigate the case, as the offences had allegedly occurred in Ernakulam. He argued that it was the Ernakulam police that should have investigated the case. .The High Court, however, rejected this argument. The Court opined that an investigation of a crime that occurred outside the local limits of the investigating police would not stand vitiated if the police officer had undertaken a genuine investigation without noticing the lack of territorial jurisdiction. "Once FIR is registered and investigation is undertaken bona fide, omitting to note lack of territorial jurisdiction, then Section 156(2) of Cr.P.C will come into play, and the investigation by that Police Officer cannot be called in question, at any stage, on the ground that, such Officer was not empowered to investigate, as the offence was committed outside the territorial limits of that Police Station," the Court said. .The Court added that the same cannot be said for the trial court the case. When it comes to trial, only the competent trial court having territorial jurisdiction can adjudicate on the criminal case, the Court clarified. ."Section 177 of Cr.P.C. confers jurisdiction only on the Court within the local jurisdiction of which the offence was committed. So, even if, investigation was conducted by a Police Officer having no jurisdiction over the area in which the crime was registered, the investigation will not be vitiated going by Section 156(2) of Cr.P.C. But, the trial has to be conducted by the court having jurisdiction over the area where the offence was committed.".In the present case, the trial had already been transferred to the Ernakulam trial court which had territorial jurisdiction to try the case.The High Court proceeded to dismiss the plea filed by the accused and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial expeditiously, and "at any rate within six months" since the crime had allegedly occurred in 2011..The petitioner (accused) was represented by advocate Sebastian Joseph (Kurisummoottil).The State was represented by Public Prosecutor Vipin Narayan..[Read Order]