An investigating officer (IO) may be examined in a criminal case for several important reasons. Though, depending upon the facts of the case, non-examination of Investigating Officer (IO) sometimes may not be of much consequence. Generally, an IO’s testimony provides vital insights into the investigation process, evidence handling, and the context of the case.
1. Introduction
In India, the Investigating Officer (IO) plays a crucial role in the investigation of criminal cases. Their responsibilities are governed by the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), and relevant judicial decisions.
1.1 Examination of Investigating Officer
The examination of the investigating officer in the context of a trial refers to the process in which the investigating officer, who conducted the investigation of the case, is called to testify in court. This officer is questioned by both the prosecution and the defense to establish the facts of the investigation, the methods used, and the evidence gathered. The goal is to verify the accuracy, legality, and impartiality of the investigation. The officer’s testimony can help clarify crucial details about the case, including how evidence was collected, witnesses were interviewed, and whether the investigation followed proper legal procedures.
1.2 Role of Investigating Officer: Supreme Court Judgments
The role of the Investigating Officer (IO) in India is integral to the criminal justice process. They ensure that the investigation is conducted thoroughly as per law, with the ultimate goal of gathering sufficient evidence to prove the guilt or innocence of the accused. The IO’s duties encompass gathering evidence, recording statements, interrogating suspects, and preparing the case for trial.
In State of Bihar and Another vs. P.P. Sharma IAS and Another, 1991 AIR 1260, the Supreme Court of India held-
The investigating officer is the arm of the law and plays pivotal role in the dispensation of criminal justice and maintenance of law and order. The police investigation is, therefore, the foundation stone on which the whole edifice of criminal trial rests-as error in its chain of investigation may result in miscarriage of justice and the prosecution entails with acquittal. The duty of the investigating officer, therefore, is to ascertain facts, to extract truth from half-truth or garbled version, connecting the chain of events. Investigation is a tardy and tedious process. Enough power, therefore, has been given to the police officer in the area of investigatory process, granting him or her great latitude to exercise his discretionary power to make a successful investigation. It is by his action that law becomes an actual positive forces. Often crimes are committed in secrecy with dexterity and at high places. The investigating officer may have to obtain information from sources disclosed or undisclosed and there is no set procedure to conduct investigation to connect every step in the chain of prosecution case by collecting the evidence except to the extent expressly prohibited by the Code or the Evidence Act or the Constitution. In view of the arduous task involved in the investigation he has been given free liberty to collect the necessary evidence in any manner he feels expedient, on the facts and in given circumstances. His/her primary focus is on the solution of the crime by intensive investigation. It is his duty to ferret out the truth. Laborious hard-work and attention to the details, ability to sort out through mountainous information, recognised behavourial patterns and above all, to co-ordinate the efforts of different people associated with various elements of the crime and the case, are essential. Diverse methods are, therefore, involved in making a successful completion of the investigation.
In Jamuna Chaudhary v State of Bihar, [1974] 3 SCC 774 the Supreme Court held-
"The Duty of the investigating officer is not merely to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the court to record a conviction, but to bring out the real unvarnished truth."
In State of Bihar and Another vs. P.P. Sharma IAS and Another (supra) the Supreme Court further held-
The only duty cast on the investigation is to maintain a diary of his investigation, which is known as "Case Diary" under s. 172 of the Code. The entries in the case diary are not evidence nor can they be used by the accused or the court unless the case comes under s. 172(3) of the Code. The court is entitled for perusal to enable it to find out if the investigation has been conducted on the right lines so that appropriate directions, if need be given and may also provide materials showing the necessity to summon witnesses not mentioned in the list supplied by the prosecution or to bring on record other relevant material which in the opinion of the court will help it to arrive at a proper decision in terms of s. 172(3) of the Code. The primary duty of the police, thus is to collect and sift the evidence of the commission of the offence to find whether the accused committed the offence or has reason to believe to have committed the offence and the evidence available is sufficient to prove the offence and to submit his report to the competent Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence.
2. Consequences: Non-examination of Investigating Officer (IO)
If an investigating officer is not examined during trial, several things could happen, depending on the law, legalities and the specifics of the case. Broadly speaking, the following consequences might arise:
2.1 Potential Weakening of the Prosecution’s Case
- The Investigating Officer typically plays a crucial role in presenting evidence and clarifying how the investigation unfolded. If they are not examined (or cross-examined), the prosecution may fail to establish certain facts that support their case, such as how the evidence was collected, the timeline of events, or whether the investigation followed proper procedures.
2.2 Impact on the Credibility of Evidence
- The Investigating Officer is the key to explaining the chain of custody for physical evidence and the reliability of witness statements. Without their testimony, the accused / defendant may argue that the evidence presented is unreliable or that there was mishandling or tampering, which would only weaken the prosecution’s case.
2.3 Failure to Clarify Ambiguities
- Investigating Officers often provide clarifications during the trial that help the court understand complex aspects of the case, such as forensic procedures or the interpretation of evidence. Without their testimony, these matters may remain unclear, potentially leading to an acquittal or reduced credibility of the prosecution’s case.
2.4 Effect on the Defendant
The defendant / accused may argue that the failure to examine the Investigating Officer is indicative of a flaw in the prosecution’s case. This could be used to suggest that the prosecution is hiding something or that their evidence is incomplete or not credible.
2.5 Legal Consequences
Depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, if an Investigating Officer’s testimony appears to be crucial and if the said Investigating Officer (IO) is not called to testify without sufficient justification, the case could be dismissed or the evidence may be ruled inadmissible. In certain cases, this may become a ground for a retrial or an appeal, especially if the absence of the Officer’s testimony undermines a fair trial.
2.6 Impact on Judgment
If the Investigating Officer is not available for examination, it could lead to questions about the thoroughness of the investigation or the integrity of the process. This may bear a considerable impact on the perception of the Judge in the case and eventually on the judgment, especially if the officer’s testimony was expected to fill in key details.
3. Supreme Court Judgments: Non-examination of Investigating Officer
The Supreme Court of India in the case of Munna Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 SCC OnLine SC 80 observed as under-
It is true that mere failure/neglect to effect seizure of the weapon(s) cannot be the sole reason for discarding the prosecution case but the same assumes importance on the face of the oral testimony of the so-called eye-witnesses, i.e., PW-2 and PW-3, not being found by this Court to be wholly reliable. The missing links could have been provided by the Investigating Officer who, again, did not enter the witness box. Whether or not non- examination of a witness has caused prejudice to the defence is essentially a question of fact and an inference is required to be drawn having regard to the facts and circumstances obtaining in each case. The reason why the Investigating Officer could not depose as a witness, as told by PW-4, is that he had been sent for training. It was not shown that the Investigating Officer under no circumstances could have left the course for recording of his deposition in the trial court. It is worthy of being noted that neither the trial court nor the High Court considered the issue of non-examination of the Investigating Officer. In the facts of the present case, particularly conspicuous gaps in the prosecution case and the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 not being wholly reliable, this Court holds the present case as one where examination of the Investigating Officer was vital since he could have adduced the expected evidence. His non- examination creates a material lacuna in the effort of the prosecution to nail the appellants, thereby creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution case.
The Supreme Court of India in Arvind Singh vs State Of Bihar 2001 (6) SCC 407 observed as under-
The High Court however, has not delved into the issue of non-examination of Investigating Officer. We are at a loss to find such an omission on the part of the High Court on such a vital issue. ..... We do feel it expedient to record that the conviction and sentence as imposed against the husband-appellant cannot be sustained. The sentence of imprisonment for life thus under Section 302 stands set aside. There is no evidence, convincing, so as to even render the accused appellant suffer such a conviction. There is no challenge by the State as against the order of acquittal of other three accused persons under Section 304B as such we are not inclined to delve into the matter as regards the involvement of the other three persons but the appellants explanation of stove- burst being the cause of the event cannot be brushed aside. It is undoubtedly a social and heinous crime to have the wife burnt to death but without any proper and reliable evidence, the law court can not by itself also justify its conclusion in the matter of involvement of the husband: Direct evidence may not be available but circumstantial evidence with reasonable probity and without a snap in the chain of events would certainly tantamount to a definite evidence about the involvement but not otherwise. What is the evidence available in the matter To put it shortly, there is none! The factum of burn injury cannot be doubted and the subsequent unfortunate death but that is about all. Why was the Investigating officer not examined No answers are forthcoming even at this stage but why not? Is it a lacuna? We need not dilate thereon but the fact remains there is not a whisper in regard thereto!
In Behari Prasad v. State of Bihar [1996] 2 SCC 317, the Supreme Court held-
It, however, appears to us that the entire case diary should not have been allowed to be exhibited by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In the facts of the case, it appears to us that the involvement of the accused in committing the murder has been clearly established by the evidences of the eye witnesses. Such evidences are in conformity with the case made out in F.I.R. and also with the medical evidence. Hence, for non examination of Investigating Officer, the prosecution case should not fail. We may also indicate here that it will not be correct to contend that if an Investigating Officer is not examined in a case, such case should fail on the ground that the accused were deprived of the opportunity to effectively cross examine the witnesses for the prosecution and to bring out contradictions in their statements before the police. A case of prejudice likely to be suffered by an accused must depend on the facts of the case and no universal straight jacket formula should be laid down that non examination of Investigating Officer per se vitiates a criminal trial.
In Ambika Prasad and Another vs State (Delhi Administration, Delhi) AIR 2000 Supreme Court 718, the Supreme Court held-
As observed by this court in State of UP v. Anil Singh, (AIR 1988 SC 1998) it is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform. Hence, we would only state that it is unfortunate state of affair that police officers resiled from their own statements and deposed something contrary before the court. Equally, it is unfortunate that investigating officer has not stepped into the witness box without any justifiable ground. But this conduct of the investigating officer or other hostile witnesses cannot be a ground for discarding the evidence of PW5 and PW7 whose presence on the spot is established beyond reasonable doubt. They have suffered injuries and their evidence is corroborated by medical evidence. It is also in-conformity with what has been stated in the FIR. In any case, investigating officer is not at all material witness for the purpose of establishing whether accused or the complainant party was the aggressor. Not only that, accused have examined the defence witnesses for establishing their say. Hence, non-examination of the investigating officer cannot be a ground for holding that injured witnesses should not be believed.
In Bahadur Naik vs. State of Bihar, [2000] 9 SCC 153, the Supreme Court held-
The appellant has not been able to shake the credibility of the eye-witnesses. No material contradiction in the case of the prosecution has been shown to us. Under these facts and circumstances, the non-examination of the Investigating Officer as a witness is of no consequence. It has not been shown what prejudice has been caused to the appellant by such non-examination.
The Supreme Court of India in Habeeb Mohammed vs. State of Hyderabad AIR 1954 SC 51 observed-
In this situation it seems to us that Biabani who was a top ranking police officer present at the scene was a material witness in the case and it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to examine him, particularly when no allegation was made that if produced, he would not speak the truth; and, in any case, the court would have been well advised to exercise its discretionary powers to examine that witness. The witness was at the time of the trial in charge of the Police Training School and was certainly available. In our opinion, not only does an adverse inference arise against the prosecution case from his non- production as a witness in view of illustration (g) to section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, but the circumstance of his being withheld from the court casts a serious reflection on the fairness of the trial. It seems to us that the appellant was considerably prejudiced in his defence by reason of this omission on the part of the prosecution and on the part of the court. The reasons given by the learned Judge for refusing to summon Biabani do not show that the, Judge seriously applied his mind either to the Provisions of the section or to the effects of omitting to examine such an important 'Witness.
In Birendra Rai And Ors. vs State Of Bihar 2005 (9) SCC 719, the Supreme Court held-
It was then submitted that the investigating officer was not examined in this case and that has resulted in prejudice to the accused. Having gone through the evidence of witnesses and other material on record, we do not find that any prejudice has been caused to the defence by non-examination of the investigating officer. The mere fact that according to the seizure list a stick with blood stains and pellet marks was seized from the place of occurrence, would not advance this argument any further. The seizures have not been proved in this case because the investigating officer was not examined, and the seizure witness has turned hostile. We, therefore, ignore the seizures made and base our decision on the other evidence and the evidence of two eye witnesses, who have impressed us as truthful.
In Lahu Kamlakar Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 417, the Supreme Court held-
“18. Keeping in view the aforesaid position of law, the testimony of PW 1 has to be appreciated. He has admitted his signature in the FIR but has given the excuse that it was taken on a blank paper. The same could have been clarified by the investigating officer, but for some reason, the investigating officer has not been examined by the prosecution. It is an accepted principle that non-examination of the investigating officer is not fatal to the prosecution case. In Behari Prasad v. State of Bihar [(1996) 2 SCC 317: 1996 SCC (Cri) 271], this Court has stated that non-examination of the investigating officer is not fatal to the prosecution case, especially, when no prejudice is likely to be suffered by the accused. In Bahadur Naik v. State of Bihar [(2000) 9 SCC 153: 2000 SCC (Cri) 1186] , it has been opined that when no material contradictions have been brought out, then non-examination of the investigating officer as a witness for the prosecution is of no consequence and under such circumstances, no prejudice is caused to the accused. It is worthy to note that neither the trial Judge nor the High Court has delved into the issue of non-examination of the investigating officer. On a perusal of the entire material brought on record, we find that no explanation has been offered. The present case is one where we are inclined to think so especially when the informant has stated that the signature was taken while he was in a drunken state, the panch witness had turned hostile and some of the evidence adduced in the court did not find place in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code. Thus, this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of Bihar, [(2001) 6 SCC 407: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1148], Rattanlal v. State of J&K [(2007) 13 SCC 18: (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 349] and Ravishwar Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand [(2008) 16 SCC 561: (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 50], has explained certain circumstances where the examination of investigating officer becomes vital. We are disposed to think that the present case is one where the investigating officer should have been examined and his non-examination creates a lacuna in the case of the prosecution.”
4. Conclusion
Ultimately, the failure to examine an Investigating Officer does not automatically result in the collapse of a case, but it can significantly affect the trial’s outcome, depending on the circumstances and the importance of the Officer’s testimony to the case.