Table of Contents

Introduction : Investigation

According to the Section 2(h) of the Code of criminal procedure, 1973 stated that “investigation” includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf.

As per the Oxford dictionary “An official examination of facts about a situation, crime etc. A scientific or academic examination of the facts of the subject or problem”.

Supreme Court recently in Navin Chandra N. Majithia v. State of Meghalaya^{^[1]} Recent Criminal Reports 476 has observed “The Code contemplates the following steps to be carried out during such investigation

(1) Proceeding to spot

(2) Ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case

(3) Discovery and arrest of suspected offender

(4) Collection of evidence relating to the commission of offence which may consist of (a) the examination of various persons (including accused) and reduction of their statement into writing (b) search of places, seizure of things considered necessary for investigation and to be produced at the trial.

(5) Formation of opinion as to whether on material collected, there is a case to place the accused before Magistrate for trial and if so taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of a charge sheet under Section 173.”

Further Investigation

As per Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides

Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub- section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub- sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub- section(2).

Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) governs the procedural aspects of criminal law in India. Further investigation under CrPC allows law enforcement agencies to collect additional evidence after the initiation of legal proceedings. This provision is crucial for ensuring a fair trial and comprehensive adjudication of cases. The investigating officer may seek court permission for further investigation if new facts emerge or if existing evidence is insufficient.During further investigation, authorities can re-examine witnesses, gather fresh evidence, or explore leads not initially pursued. This process aims to unearth all relevant facts, aiding in the establishment of guilt or innocence. However, the scope of further investigation is not limitless, and it requires court approval to prevent abuse of power.

While CrPC provisions facilitate thorough inquiry, balancing the rights of the accused is paramount. The legal framework ensures transparency and accountability in the investigative process, promoting justice and safeguarding individual liberties. Overall, further investigation in CrPC serves as a mechanism to enhance the accuracy and completeness of criminal proceedings.

Need of the Further Investigation

The Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) serves as a vital legal framework for criminal proceedings, ensuring fairness and justice. Further investigation under CRPC may be necessary for various reasons.

Firstly, new evidence or witnesses may emerge, shedding light on previously undiscovered aspects of the case. This can be pivotal in establishing the truth and ensuring that no innocent party faces unwarranted consequences.

Secondly, if initial investigations were flawed or incomplete, a supplementary inquiry becomes imperative to rectify these deficiencies. This ensures a comprehensive and accurate understanding of the alleged criminal activities. Additionally, advancements in forensic technology may provide new avenues for exploration, necessitating a re-examination of the case.

Moreover, the evolving nature of criminal activities and modus operandi may require ongoing investigations to keep pace with emerging trends. This is crucial for adapting legal strategies and ensuring that the criminal justice system remains effective.In conclusion, further investigation under CRPC is essential to uphold the principles of justice, uncover new evidence, rectify investigative shortcomings, and adapt to the dynamic nature of criminal activities.

Case law related to Further Investigation

‘Rama Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar^{^[2]}

The hon’ble apex court held “further investigation” is the continuation of the previous investigation or subsequent investigation and is not fresh or de-novo investigation which

initially wipes out the investigation done earlier. Further investigation within the meaning of the provision of section 173(8) is additional or supplemental.

Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat^{^[3]}

Wherein it has been held that in view of the provisions of Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (8) of Section 173, even after submission of the police report under Sub-section (2) on completion of the investigation, the police have a right to ‘further’ investigation under Sub-section (8) of Section 173, but not ‘fresh investigation’ or’re-investigation’. That the meaning of ‘further’ is additional, more or supplemental. ‘Further’ investigation, therefore, is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether.

Sri B.S.S.V.V.V. Maharaj v. State of Uttar Pradesh^{^[4]}

In this case it was held that the power of the police to conduct further investigation even, after laying final report, is recognised under Section 173(8).

In the Vinay Tyagi V/s Irshad Ali & Ors^{^[5]}

The question of law that arose for adjudication was: Whether the Magistrate has jurisdiction under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. to direct further investigation?

It was held that:

a. When a report is filed before a Magistrate, he may either: (1) accept the report and take cognizance of the offences and issue process; or (2) may disagree with the report and drop the proceedings; or (3) may direct further investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. and require the police to make a further report.

b. If the Magistrate disagrees with the report and drops the proceedings, the informant is required to be given an opportunity to submit the protest application and thereafter, after giving an opportunity to the informant, the Magistrate may take a further decision whether to drop the proceedings against the accused or not. If the Magistrate accepts the objections, in that case, he may issue process and/ or even frame the charges against the accused.

The Court of Magistrate has a clear power to direct further investigation when a report is filed under Section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C. and may also exercise such powers with the aid of Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. Thus, the Magistrate before whom a report under Section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C. is filed, is empowered in law to direct “further investigation” and require the police to submit a further or a supplementary report.

c. After filing of the final report, the Magistrate can take cognizance on the basis of the material placed on record by the investigating agency and it is permissible for him to direct further investigation.

d. The powers of a Magistrate in terms of Section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 173 (8) and Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. are as follows:

e. The Magistrate has no power to direct “reinvestigation” or “fresh investigation” (de novo) in the case initiated on the basis of a police report.

f. A Magistrate has the power to direct “further investigation” after filing of a police report in terms of Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C.

g. It has been a procedure of propriety that the police have to seek permission of the court to continue “further investigation” and file supplementary charge-sheet.

h. The requirement of seeking prior leave of the court to conduct “further investigation” and/or to file a “supplementary report” will have to be read into, and is a necessary implication of the provisions of Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C.

Re-investigation

Re-investigation is a process of investigation denovo and CrPC is silent in relation to the process of re-investigation. Re-investigation without permission is prohibited.Magistrate cannot order a new investigation under the terms of the CrPC or for the police to reinvestigate the matter.The Court may order a new investigation into the case during a re-investigation. This is not an additional action like an investigation. It is a completely new process.

Characteristics of Re-investigation are:

Only the higher courts in the hierarchy, such the High Courts or the Supreme Court, have the authority to order a new investigation. No magistrate may demand a new investigation.

Re-investigation cannot be done by the police on their own. Re-investigation requires a specific order from the court. However, even without a court order, the police can conduct additional inquiries under Section 173(8) CrPC.

The term “re-investigation” is not mentioned in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Only in extreme situations, where the investigation’s impartiality is so great that it offends the Court’s judicial conscience, can it be ordered.

According to the ruling in Vinay Tyagi, a re-investigation may be requested if the judge finds that the investigation was unfair, tainted, dishonest, or otherwise suspected.

Need of the Re-investigation

The need for re-investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) arises when new evidence surfaces or there are substantial flaws in the initial investigation. CRPC provides a legal framework to ensure fair and just proceedings. Re-investigation becomes imperative if there are doubts regarding the accuracy, completeness, or fairness of the original inquiry.Several circumstances may warrant re-investigation, such as the discovery of crucial evidence that was overlooked initially, revelations of witness tampering, or suspicions of investigative misconduct. The primary objective is to uphold the principles of justice, allowing for a thorough examination of facts and circumstances surrounding a case.Additionally, advancements in forensic technology or changes in legal precedents may necessitate revisiting a case. The CRPC acknowledges the dynamic nature of criminal investigations and grants the judiciary the authority to order a re-investigation in the interest of justice.Re-investigation acts as a safeguard against wrongful convictions and ensures that the legal process remains robust, transparent, and aligned with the principles of equity. It serves as a mechanism to rectify any deficiencies in the initial inquiry, promoting the integrity of the criminal justice system.

Case Law Related to the Re-investigation

In the case of Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and Others^{^[6]}, the Supreme Court held in this historic ruling that a fair investigation is an essential component of the fundamental rights protected by Article 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India . As a result, it is forbidden to let an investigative agency conduct a skewed or compromised investigation. The court highlighted that in situations where neglecting to act might ultimately result in a miscarriage of justice, it is required to step in and appoint an independent authority to conduct a fresh investigation.

In Samaj Parivartan Samudaya & others v. State of Karnataka^{^[7]}, it was determined that the primary objective of an investigation should be to establish the truth through a thorough, law-abiding probe and to ensure that those found guilty will face punishment. The court’s authority to ensure a proper and equitable investigation is stronger under an adversarial system of criminal administration than it is under an inquisitorial one, and it must take precautions to prevent taking an interest or powerful parties from tampering with the investigation or hijacking it entirely in order to prevent a fair investigation from taking place and the offenders from facing the full force of the law. It was stated that any lapse would result in jurisdictional error.

Difference between Further Investigation and Re- Investigation

Further investigation involves exploring new aspects or leads in a case, expanding the scope of inquiry. It aims to gather additional information beyond the initial examination. On the other hand, re-investigation entails revisiting a case that has been previously examined, often due to unresolved issues, new evidence, or legal requirements. It focuses on scrutinizing existing information, potentially with a fresh perspective or advanced techniques. Both processes contribute to the pursuit of truth, but further investigation broadens the inquiry, while re-investigation delves back into known details to ensure accuracy or address unresolved elements.
The dictionary meaning of further investigation is ‘additional, more, supplemental’ which re-investigation is ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether.
The direction of the High Court for re-investigation or fresh investigation are unacceptable while There can be further investigation if required.

Conclusion

After a thorough re-investigation under the Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC), the findings indicate a need for further investigation. New leads and evidence have surfaced, requiring a comprehensive examination to ensure a fair and accurate resolution. The process adheres to legal protocols, emphasizing diligence and fairness in pursuit of justice. The outcome of the re-investigation underscores the dynamic nature of criminal cases, prompting continued efforts to uncover the truth and uphold the principles of the CRPC.

Reference

Universal Criminal Manual (Lexis Nexis) Saurabh Printers Pvt. Ltd. Greater Noida U.P.
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure 23rd Edition 2020.
htttps://ijalr.in (last visited on December 14, 2023).