Source: The Hindu

Introduction

The need for a ‘consistent and dependable code of investigation’ was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023).

A dedicated law for investigations helps establish clear procedures, guidelines, and safeguards to ensure fair and thorough inquiries into criminal activities. SC through several sets of precedents has reiterated the need to reform the investigation laws.

What is Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA)?

Reform Required:

• Section 27 of IEA, which outlines the conditions for the admissibility of facts discovered based on information from an individual described as 'accused of any offence' and 'in the custody of a police officer’ has been criticized several times by the court.
• The Court emphasized that the individual could not be considered to be in police custody until formally arrested.
• This was because the person was just a suspect and not named as accused in the First Information Report (FIR) until he was formally arrested.

Landmark Cases:

• In Re: Man Singh (1959):
  • The SC determined that the term 'custody' does not exclusively refer to detention or confinement.
  • According to the ruling, voluntarily subjecting oneself to custody, through actions or words, is also considered custody as per the provisions of this section.
  • Additionally, it was established that even indirect influence over the activities of suspects by police qualifies as 'police custody.'
• State of UP v. Deoman Upadhyaya (1960):
  • The SC while discussing Section 27 IEA held that “The expression ‘a person accused of any offence’ in Section 27 IEA is merely descriptive of the persons against whom evidence is sought to be led in a criminal proceeding”.
  • It is not necessary that the person should have been accused of an offence at the time when he made the statement leading to the discovery of a fact.
• Md. Dastagiri v. State (1960):
  • In this case the SC determine that sometime arrest of suspect is required if evidence is discovered from his statement.
  • Once the evidence is determined by the statement of suspect, it will become the first evidence against him resulting in his arrest.
  • Hence, when the suspect was in police custody while giving a statement under Section 27 of IEA, he was not formally arrested.

What is Section 100 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)?

Compliance of Section 100 (4) & 100 (5):

• The provisions talk about the presence of an independent witness during the process of search and seizure by police along with other discoveries.
  • Sub-section (4) of Section 100 CrPC: Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.
  • Sub-section (5) of Section 100 CrPC: The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless specially summoned by it.

Landmark Cases:

• State NCT of Delhi v. Sunil (2001):
  • The SC emphasized upon the importance of compliance with Section 100 CrPC for the effective application of Section 27 IEA.
• Mushir Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr v. State of MP (2010):
  • The SC held that “if the discovery under Section 27 IEA is otherwise reliable, its evidentiary value is not diluted just by reason of non-compliance of Section 100(4) or Section 100(5) of the CrPC”.

Conclusion

The lack of a proper code for investigation leads to the acquittal of guilty people due to technical loopholes. The contradictions among interpretations of terms in separate legislations is shaking the roots of the criminal justice system. The SC is required to reiterate the procedure of investigation in cases; otherwise, the most appropriate procedure will be overruled and left untouched.