Investigation

Posted on by user

Introduction
Investigation is the engine-room of the criminal justice system. It is the process by which facts are gathered, leads are pursued, evidence is secured and tested, and factual matrices are constructed upon which prosecution or closure decisions rest. In India, the quality, legality and transparency of investigation determine whether the criminal justice machinery advances truth or perpetuates abuse. For practitioners, a nuanced command of investigative law — statutory mandates, constitutional protections, forensic practices and case-law constraints — is indispensable at every stage from FIR to charge-sheet.

Core Legal Framework
– Definition: The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) defines “investigation” as all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person authorised by a Magistrate. (See the definition of “investigation” in the CrPC.)
– Primary statutory provisions that govern the course and limits of investigation:
– Section 154 CrPC — Information in cognizable cases; duty to register First Information Report (FIR).
– Section 156(1) and Section 156(3) CrPC — Police power to investigate and Magistrate’s power to direct investigation.
– Section 157 CrPC — Investigation when information is received outside the local limits of the police station.
– Section 161 CrPC — Examination of witnesses by police (recording of statements).
– Section 162 Evidence Act / Section 162 CrPC — (Criminal Procedure/ Evidence rule) statements made to police are not to be used as substantive evidence in trial (subject to impeachment use).
– Section 165 CrPC — Police power to take measures for examination of places and seizure of things.
– Section 173 CrPC — Report of police finding and submission of charge-sheet/supplementary report.
– Sections 53 & 54 CrPC — Medical examination of accused and victims; procedures in sexual offence cases (also see Section 164A).
– Arrest and pre-arrest provisions — Sections 41–60 CrPC (and post-amendment provisions such as Section 41A); decisions such as Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar shape arrest practice.
– Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 — statutory regime for collection of biometric and forensic data from accused/persons arrested (controls, safeguards and format of collection).
– Constitutional safeguards engaged during investigation:
– Article 20(3) — right against self-incrimination (affects police questioning and admissibility).
– Article 21 — right to life and personal liberty (procedural fairness in arrest, detention, medical examination, forensic sample collection).
– Article 22 — protection against arbitrary arrest/detention and rights at the time of arrest.

Practical Application and Nuances
Daily courtroom and police-station practice turns on narrow doctrinal points. Below are the operative steps, evidentiary principles and typical tactical issues faced by practitioners, with concrete examples.

  1. FIR vs. Preliminary Enquiry
  2. Mandatory registration: Following Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. (2014) the police must register an FIR when the information discloses a cognizable offence. Preliminary enquiries are permissible only in specified, limited situations where the information does not disclose a cognizable offence.

  3. Practitioner tip: If police refuse to register an FIR, immediately approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC seeking direction to register and investigate; secure the Magistrate’s order and take further steps (e.g., transfer petition, writ petition) if resistance continues.

  4. Scene of Crime, Preservation and Seizure

  5. First response is critical: securing scene, contemporaneous seizure memos (signed by independent witnesses), photographs, spot maps and forward movement of physical evidence to labs.
  6. Chain of custody: meticulously documented seizure memos, receipt vouchers, and preservation protocols — critical for admissibility.

  7. Example: In a homicide, if blood-soaked clothes are not seized contemporaneously with proper memos and preservation, defence will attack the continuity and admissibility of forensic results.

  8. Recording of Statements: Section 161 and Admissibility

  9. Statements given to police (Section 161 CrPC) are, as a rule, not substantive evidence at trial (Section 162 Evidence Act / Section 162 CrPC), but they are usable for contradiction or to test credibility.
  10. Constitutional overlay: Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978) recognized the protection against self-incrimination; accused cannot be compelled to answer questions that would incriminate them. Police must inform the person of the consequences; counsel practice is crucial.

  11. Practical handling: Counsel should ensure any voluntary statement is made after advising client of Article 20(3) rights; where adverse statements are recorded, secure the entire station diary and note circumstances of recording (coercion, absence of counsel).

  12. Arrest, Remand and Custody

  13. Arrest must be based on necessity (Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014): courts have required that arrests not be routine; procedural safeguards (notice under Section 41A) and reasons for arrest must be recorded.

  14. If client is arrested, immediate steps: insist on production before magistrate within statutory period, obtain certified copy of remand order, inspect conditions of custody, and apply promptly for bail where appropriate.

  15. Forensic Evidence and Scientific Investigation

  16. Timelines and preservation: for DNA, blood, narcotics, electronic evidence — early seizures and chain-of-custody preservation are determinative.

  17. New statutory regimes (e.g., Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022) and procedural rules regulate sample collection and retention — ensure compliance with statutory safeguards and secure judicial authorisation where necessary.

  18. Charge-sheet and Closure

  19. Police must file a report under Section 173 CrPC: either charge-sheet (if prima facie case) or closure report. Accused can seek Magistrate’s orders to examine case for cognizance. When closure report is filed, complainant/accused can request magistrate to cognize or direct further investigation (Section 173(8) and judicial discretion).

  20. Tactical move: Where police file closure report despite strong material, apply under Section 156(3) to direct re-investigation or approach higher forum for order to hand over to an independent agency.

  21. Case Diary / Inspection and Disclosure

  22. Police case diary is normally not part of prosecution disclosure; however, courts have in certain situations permitted limited inspection of the diaries to meet ends of justice (exceptional).

  23. After charges are framed, accused is entitled to documents under Section 207 CrPC; pre-charge access to the police diary is a matter of judicial discretion and exceptional relief.

  24. Use of Judicial Supervision

  25. Section 156(3): Magistrate can order investigation; use this power where police refuse to act or exhibit mala fides.
  26. High Court writ jurisdiction or petitions for transfer of investigation/CBI probe are available in cases of patently mala fide, politically sensitive or systemic bias (see Bhajan Lal guidelines qualifying when criminal proceedings should be quashed as abuse).

Landmark Judgments
– Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1 — held FIR registration is mandatory when information discloses cognizable offence and outlined the limited circumstances where preliminary enquiry is permissible; provided procedural safeguards and timelines for registration.
– Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 — emphasised necessity test for arrests under Sections 41–41A CrPC; struck down mechanical or routine arrests in minor offences and required officers to record reasons for arrest, thus protecting liberty at the investigation stage.
– Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, (1978) 2 SCC 424 — confirmed the protection against compelled self-incrimination; statements to police are not substantive evidence and the accused cannot be compelled to answer questions that may incriminate.
– State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 — laid down categories of cases where criminal proceedings can be quashed as being an abuse of process (relevant when invocation of investigation is mala fide or frivolous).

Strategic Considerations for Practitioners
– For defence counsel
– Act immediately on arrest or FIR: preserve proof of time of arrest, copies of FIR (Section 154(2)), seizure memos, photographs and med-legal reports.
– Challenge illegalities early: illegal search/seizure, failure to follow Section 161/162 safeguards, coerced statements, lack of chain of custody — these are potent grounds for excluding evidence or quashing prosecution.
– Use Arnesh Kumar and related jurisprudence to resist unnecessary arrests and to seek statutory notices (41A) or anticipatory bail where justified.
– Scrutinize charge-sheet for material contradictions and omissions; file well-supported applications for further investigation or for transfer/probe by independent agency if malafide conduct is apparent.
– For prosecuting counsel and complainants
– Meticulous documentation at scene and during investigation — clear seizure memos, scientific tests and contemporaneous diaries strengthen the prosecution.
– Ensure compliance with Lalita Kumari framework for prompt FIR registration and follow-up.
– Prepare for pre-trial disclosure obligations under Section 207 CrPC; ensure that crucial witness statements and reports are preserved and certified.
– Common pitfalls to avoid
– For police and prosecution: reliance on coerced confessions, poor preservation of physical evidence, failure to observe statutory safeguards (arrest/medical exam/forensic sampling) — all can cause collapse of case.
– For defence: failure to move promptly to protect rights (e.g., delay in filing remand objections, not challenging illegal search immediately) can foreclose remedies.
– Overreliance on police diary for reconstructing events; remember diaries are not substantive evidence.

Checklist for Courtroom Advocacy Relating to Investigation
– Obtain certified copy of FIR (Section 154) and seizure memos immediately.
– Secure copy of remand orders and station diaries (where possible) and photograph scene/evidence.
– Preserve and demand forensic test reports with chain-of-custody documentation.
– Record precise grounds for challenging arrest, detention, medical/forensic procedures on record early.
– Use magistrate’s power under Section 156(3) where police inaction or bias is apparent; consider writ jurisdiction or transfer petitions for systemic failure.

Conclusion
Investigation is where a case is born or dies. For lawyers, mastery of investigative law is about vigilance — ensuring statutory procedures are followed, constitutional safeguards are respected, evidence is preserved properly and strategic petitions are used to correct police or prosecutorial lapses. Landmark cases like Lalita Kumari, Arnesh Kumar and Nandini Satpathy provide doctrinal signposts: prompt FIR registration; restraint over arrests; and protection against self-incrimination. Practically, success at trial often turns not on eloquence in the courtroom but on the rigor, legality and documentation of the investigation.