Police, prosecutors must not frame innocent by presenting selective evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has directed the State government and its Police department to ensure that the investigating officers (IOs) and prosecutors do not present selective evidence before trial courts to frame innocent people [State Of HP vs Chohan Singh & Others].

The Division Bench of Justices Vivek Singh Thakur and Bipin Chander Negi emphasised that the role and duty of investigating agencies and prosecutors is to present the truth and not frame anyone by hook or crook to submit challans before trial courts.

“We are living in an independent Democratic Social Welfare Republic, which strives for the protection of the innocent under a Rule of Law,” the Court added in its November 5 ruling.

The Bench further said that investigating agency’s duty is not like one from the colonial era, to frame a person by withholding the truth from court. 

“None should be made to face the trial despite having evidence of innocence in his favour, withholding such evidence from Court. In every case, where there is evidence of innocence of accused, prosecution/Investigating Agency is expected to act fairly and to place on record entire material and thereafter, is required to submit a report of cancellation of FIR or abortion of criminal action initiated against the accused named in FIR/complaint for having sufficient material proving his innocence,” it underscored.

To ensure this, the Court has directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Director General of Police (DGP) and Director Prosecution to issue appropriate instructions and impart training to IOs and prosecutors to ensure fair investigation and prosecution in all cases.

It also called for a mechanism to monitor the conduct of IOs, prosecutors and other government advocates, so that appropriate action may be taken against such functionaries if only selective evidence is submitted to frame a person.

The Court added that such actions lead to a sheer wastage of public money, time and energy of not only the persons involved, but also of the Court.

“Such approach (presenting selective evidence) is amounting to dereliction of duty which increases the unnecessary burden on the Courts, which are already over-burdened and are trying to ensure imparting of justice by reducing the pendency of old cases despite callous and indifferent response of State in creating adequate number of Courts for strengthening the Justice Imparting System,” it said.

The Court was dealing with an appeal moved by the State against the acquittal of various accused in a cheating and corruption case.

In 2007, certain officials were accused of cheating the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education in 2004-2005 by illegally showing a Class XI student to have appeared in a supplementary exam by getting his roll number changed in the result sheet.

It was also alleged that this student's marks certificate in Class XII was also tampered with in connivance with employees of the Board.

However, the accused were acquitted by a Special Judge in Kullu in 2012.

While dealing with the appeal against this acquittal, the Court found that the IO had admitted before the trial court that she intentionally had not taken possession of various documents that could have proven the innocence of the accused.

The Court deprecated such conduct and proceeded to dismiss the State's appeal against the acquittal.

Additional Advocate General Pawan Kumar Nadda represented the State of Himachal Pradesh.

Advocates Vinay Thakur, Vishwa Bhushan, Gurmeet Bhardwaj and Anuja Mehta represented the respondents.

[Read Judgment]