The Supreme Court of India has warned that an over-zealous investigation can damage a criminal case just as much as a slow investigation. The Court said such probes can lead to miscarriages of justice, where innocent people suffer and the real offenders escape.

Case of Elderly Couple’s Death in Fire:
These observations were made by Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran while hearing a case related to a fire in which an elderly couple died.

In the case, the couple’s son and daughter-in-law were accused of murdering them. The prosecution mainly relied on the claim that the son was angry with his father for not giving him his share of the ancestral property.

However, the Court found serious flaws in the investigation. It noted that there was hostility in the village against the accused, and the investigating officer focused mainly on evidence that supported the prosecution’s theory while ignoring other aspects.

Investigation Driven by Public Suspicion:
The Court said the investigation appeared to follow public suspicion and anger instead of carefully examining all the facts, which weakened the prosecution’s case and affected the search for the truth.

The court said:

“Overzealous investigation is as fatal to prosecution as are the lethargic and the tardy. Framing a case on public perceptions and personal predilections ends up in a mess, often putting to peril an innocent and always letting free the perpetrator. Here, we have a case of gruesome death of a couple when their house was gutted in a fire, with the son and daughter-in-law accused of murder. The entire case is founded on motive; the ill-will the son harbored against the father for not having given him his due share in the ancestral property. The entire village was against the son and the mishap ended in an investigation where truth was sacrificed at the altar of perceived vengeance, ably assisted by the Investigating Officer's selective but careless pursuits, derailing the entire prosecution.”

Supreme Court Upholds Kerala High Court Acquittal:
Upholding the acquittal granted by the High Court of Kerala, the Supreme Court pointed out serious problems in the prosecution’s case. The judgment, written by Justice K. Vinod Chandran, said there were major contradictions in the dying declarations. The Court also noted that these statements were recorded in the presence of family members who had a stake in the case, which raised doubts about whether they were reliable.

The Court also criticised the prosecution for not examining an important independent witness. Evidence suggested that a woman nearby was threshing paddy when the fire started, and she might have seen how the incident began. However, the prosecution did not include her as a witness, which the Court said was a serious lapse.

“Even if it is assumed that the lady spoken of by the three witnesses was the very same person, she was the best witness who could have been examined with respect to the first indication of the crime. In fact, PW2 and PW3 specifically speak of that lady having been engaged in threshing paddy. There was every possibility of her having witnessed the fire breaking out and could have better explained the causation. The non-examination of the crucial witness, spoken of by the witnesses who reached the place later, on hearing her shouts, is a very serious lacuna in prosecution.”, the Court observed.

Court Calls Investigation a Sham:
The Court further criticised the investigation, stating:

“There was a concerted effort by the I.O not to bring any independent witnesses to the stand.The investigation, according to us was a sham and was premeditated, throwing to the winds every tenet of criminal jurisprudence informed by due procedure”, it added.

In the end, the Court said the prosecution’s case appeared to be based more on suspicion and hearsay than strong evidence, and therefore dismissed the appeal filed by the elder son challenging the acquittal of the accused couple.

Case Detail: Sanjay Kumar Sharma Versus State of Bihar & Ors.