The Supreme Court wants a specialised section of the police to investigate heinous crimes. This suggestion came in a recent judgment where a murder convict was allowed to go scot-free due to absence of any direct evidence to nail his guilt.
Punching holes in the prosecution story that had survived the test through the trial court and High Court in Tamil Nadu, the apex court was appalled to note that the prosecution did not establish a motive for the accused to commit the crime, no evidence was collected to confirm the presence of the accused at the scene of crime and worse, the alleged murder weapon had not been recovered till date.
The sole basis to punish the accused with a life term was his confessional statement from which he resiled during trial. “It is abundantly clear that the investigation conducted by the police was far less than satisfactory, nay, it was non-existent,” the apex court held.
Under the legal system of the country, burden is cast on prosecution to prove the guilt and not the other way round, as in this case, where accused has to establish his innocence. To tide over such possibility in future, the bench of Justices SJ Mukhopadhaya and Vikramajit Sen said, “We are constrained to reiterate yet again that it is necessary to have a specialized section of the Police to investigate cases of heinous nature.” Earlier, it was in 2006, when the Supreme Court ordered police reforms, of which one aspect related to separation of law and order from investigation functions of police at the police station level.
The crime occurred on July 25, 2000. The accused Nagaraj and the deceased were partners in a textile business and were on a business trip when the incident occurred. At Salem, both shared a common room at a lodge. The body was recovered from the locked room of the lodge days after the accused checked out. Police was informed after three days. It did not collect the lodge Register and Receipt Book, the most crucial evidence to link the accused with the scene of crime.
The prosecution claimed enmity to be the motive but no evidence was placed in its support. An attendant at the lodge was the only material witness who had seen the accused, but no test identification parade was conducted. No finger prints were collected and neither the Manager of the lodge or inmates of the neighbouring room facing the crime scene were questioned. For three days, the lodge Manager or attendant did not inform police casting cloud on their role as well.