Single bench of Justice B. Pugalendhi held that in case of perfunctory investigation, disciplinary proceedings are to be initiated against the officers investigating the case. In case of non-initiation of the said proceedings by the senior officials, they will be held accountable as well.
The court noted several provisions of IPC like public servant disobeying the law, with intent to cause injury to any person (S. 166), Sections 166A, 218, 219 and 220 exist but despite their availability, action is not being taken against the said officials.
The court further pointed out that from Deputy Director of Prosecution to Assistant Public Prosecutor tried to conceal the truth, acted casually just to save the real accused who committed the brutal murder.
The Trial Court’s decision to set aside the conviction of the appellant was also set aside by the Court. Further, because of the “casual” approach of the investigating party, the Bench had to take its jurisdiction suo moto conferred by Section 374(2) CrPC, to observe on the investigations going on in the State.
The Bench expressed its concern on the declining rate of conviction in the State while the rate of acquittal is seeing an upward trend, hinting that the investigation is done perfunctorily in about half of the total cases.
