The Blog of Bharat Chugh

,

Defects in Criminal Investigation: Lessons from the Trenches

In the world of criminal justice, trials often collapse not for want of law, but because of faulty facts—and more often than not, due to flawed investigations. Courtrooms are not laboratories of truth but theatres of proof, and when proof is compromised, justice is denied. The problem is not always malice or corruption; sometimes it is sheer sloppiness or lack of training.

Through my years as a judge and lawyer, I’ve seen many such cases—cases where a potentially guilty person walks free, or an innocent stands accused, because of how the crime was investigated. This article captures some of those lessons—extracted from landmark cases and judicial pronouncements—and offers a constructive path forward.

Case Study 1: State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai (2014)

A heart-wrenching case of rape and murder of a 6-year-old girl. The accused was allegedly last seen with the child and later pledged her anklets for Rs. 1000. Yet, the Supreme Court acquitted him, citing serious lapses in the investigation.

What went wrong?

  • The jeweler who accepted the anklets wasn’t examined.
  • The thumb impression on the pledge receipt wasn’t matched with the accused.
  • No DNA profiling was conducted despite bloodstained clothes.
  • A crucial witness who saw the accused with the girl wasn’t produced.
  • No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was held.
  • The prosecution failed to construct a coherent timeline or map to demonstrate the plausibility of the accused’s actions.

The Court laid down guidelines: formation of a standing committee to evaluate lapses, mandatory training of officers, and accountability of erring investigators.

Case Study 2: Dandu Jaggaraju v. State (MANU/SC/1050/2011)

In this suspected honour killing, the deceased was taken by her uncle under the pretext of visiting her ill grandmother and never returned. Her jewellery was found on the accused.

Lapses?

  • No evidence of prior hostility between families was collected.
  • First FIR didn’t mention suspicion, making later allegations appear suspect.
  • TIP was never conducted, and witness identification happened only in court—two and a half years later.

Case Study 3: Dr. (Smt.) Nupur Talwar v. State of U.P. (2017)

The tragic double murder of a 14-year-old girl and the family’s domestic help is a textbook case in investigative misadventure. The initial crime scene was contaminated; crucial forensic and electronic evidence was either not collected or wrongly interpreted.

Highlights of Investigative Failures:

  • Statements of key witnesses were inconsistent and poorly recorded.
  • No proper examination of router logs or corroboration with device usage.
  • A medical expert changed their statement five times, hinting at a sexual motive without biological evidence.
  • An hour-long YouTube video surfaced of a suspect claiming he was pressured to confess.
  • A golf club—allegedly the murder weapon—was never tested properly.
  • The CBI filed a closure report, only for the parents to be summoned later based on the same flimsy material.

Case Study 4: The 2002 Hit-and-Run Case

In a case involving a Bollywood actor, an Assistant Commissioner had to issue a circular flagging the investigation’s incompetence:

  • Delayed medical tests and mishandled blood samples.
  • Missing documentation of seized items.
  • FIR alterations without explanation.
  • Contradictions in the chain of custody.

The High Court quashed the conviction, stating that too many investigative gaps made the case unreliable.

The Common Pitfalls

The recurring themes across these cases tell a compelling story:

  1. Delay in FIRs — which raises questions about motive and fabrication.
  2. Unrecorded or poorly recorded witness statements.
  3. Failure to conduct Test Identification Parades (TIP).
  4. Sloppy forensic processes – No sealing of samples, missing hash values, or incomplete chain of custody.
  5. Joint witness statements – which courts have rightly described as the “statement of none.”
  6. Electronic evidence mishandling – improperly obtained, preserved or authenticated under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
  7. Failure to send key evidence (weapons, tyres, bottles) for forensic tests.
  8. Witness protection and tampering – often completely overlooked.

30 More Defects That Commonly Derail Investigations

Despite sound legal principles, many prosecutions fail due to recurring lapses. Below are some of the most frequent—and avoidable—investigative defects seen in recent landmark cases:

A. Procedural Lapses and Documentation Failures

  1. Delay in recording FIR without justification.
  2. No entry of police departure/arrival in the Daily Diary (Roznamcha).
  3. Crime scene not sealed or protected properly.
  4. Seizure memos not signed or witnessed.
  5. No forwarding memo of evidence to Magistrate.
  6. Recording of joint witness statements.

B. Forensic and Scientific Evidence Mismanagement

  1. Failure to conduct DNA profiling.
  2. Failure to send evidence to FSL or undue delay.
  3. No fingerprint analysis from crime scene.
  4. Missing hash values for electronic evidence.
  5. DVRs not preserved or sealed properly.

C. Witness-Related Deficiencies

  1. Non-examination of key witnesses.
  2. No statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC.
  3. Delay in recording witness statements.
  4. No Test Identification Parade conducted.
  5. Pre-TIP exposure through press/media.
  6. Use of police/stock witnesses only.

D. Medical and Expert Evidence Gaps

  1. Accused not medically examined.
  2. Doctors changing statements multiple times.
  3. Medical opinions based on non-scientific reasoning.
  4. Failure to collect weapon samples for comparison.
  5. Invalid expert demonstrations (e.g., dummy dragging).

E. Mishandling of Electronic Evidence

  1. Section 65B certificates missing or flawed.
  2. Router/computer logs not corroborated. Original Electronic Evidence not collected.
  3. Tampering or misplacement of emails or drafts.
  4. Failure to preserve call detail records (CDRs).

F. Investigative Bias and Manipulation

  1. Press conferences compromising TIP and Investigations.
  2. Withholding exculpatory material.
  3. Shifting prosecution theories.
  4. Filing charge-sheet without FSL/expert reports.

The Legal Response: New Criminal Law Reforms (2024)

India’s new criminal law codes—BNSS, BNS, and BSA—recognize some of these lacunae and seek to correct them:

  • Mandatory forensic presence in serious crimes.
  • Electronic recording of FIRs, statements, and evidence.
  • Updates to the victim every 90 days.
  • Stricter chain-of-custody norms for electronic evidence.
  • Time-bound further investigation (within 90 days post-charges).

These are important steps, but their success lies in implementation, not mere codification.

A Way Forward

To ensure investigations serve justice and not undermine it:

  • Train Investigators rigorously and regularly.
  • Institutionalize Accountability for investigative lapses.
  • Involve forensic and legal experts from the very start.
  • Create prosecution-directorates to monitor quality and involve them during investigation itself.
  • Preserve and authenticate evidence properly, especially in digital crimes.
  • Avoid media leaks and pre-trial exposure.

Conclusion

A flawed investigation is like a cracked foundation—it doesn’t matter how elaborate the structure of law is, it won’t stand. The truth doesn’t automatically emerge in courtrooms—it has to be uncovered meticulously, documented carefully, and preserved diligently.

Justice is not just a product of what happened, but how well what happened can be proven. It is time we raised the bar.

_____

Abstracted by Team Bharat from Mr. Chugh’s presentation/lecture on this issue at the Judicial Academy Sikkim and Delhi Police Academy.

Leave a Reply

Comments (

0

)