Immaterial and irrelevant lacunas in investigation would not entitle an accused to benefit of doubt: Bombay High Court
In case of highly defective investigation in case law is well settled. Defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in a defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution’s evidence thoroughly. The investigation is not a solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. This remarkable judgment was passed by the Bombay High Court in the matter of ASHOK DHONDIRAM DHAVALE V STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 904 OF 2018] by Honourable Justice Sadhana S. Jadhav and Honourable Justice N.R. Borkar. The Appellant was convicted of the offence punishable under section 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of simple imprisonment for six months. Therefore, this appeal was preferred. The facts leading to this appeal, Deepali Shinde daughter of Leelabai and the elder sister of Manisha and Poonam, called upon her mother but her cell phone was switched off and therefore, she called upon her younger sister Manisha. Her mother used to stay with Manisha and Poonam who upon enquiry, informed that mother had gone to visit her brother house 5 days ago. She kept on calling but later came to know that her mother had not visited their house. The whereabouts of her mother could not be traced moreover Manisha’s cell phone was also switched off. Later, she learnt about Manisha’s affair and was called by an unknown person about their injuries. Later, the same person again called her and asked her to come alone to a place if she wanted to meet her mother. Subsequently, she lodged a missing report at the police station and expressed suspicion against the accused Ashok Dhavale who was apprehended by the police. The Court observed that “The submission of the learned counsel, that at the most it can be said that the accused had knowledge of the place where the dead body was found and does not prove that the accused had caused homicidal death cannot be taken into consideration for the simple reason 1) That the bodies were decomposed and beyond identification. 2) The bodies were found in the forest area far from the main road. The accused is not a resident of that locality and neither it is a road commonly used by a passer-by and if so he ought to have disclosed the source of his knowledge.3) There is no explanation as to why his wallet was found on the spot close to the dead body. The contents of the letter as is reflected in Para 26 of the judgment of the trial Court also needs to be taken into consideration as the contents would prove there was rather a love affair between Manisha and the accused.” In this regard, the HC bench stated that “Witnesses may lie but circumstances speak for themselves. In a case of circumstantial evidence, if the material collected in the course of investigation are interlinked the same has to considered accordingly. A logical inference has to be drawn. What needs to be appreciated and considered is the cumulative effect of the circumstances which must be such as to negate the innocence of the accused and the said circumstances lead to the only conclusion that the accused is the perpetrator of the Crime. Moreover, there is no material on record to show that prior to the information given by the accused there was any possibility for the police to know the site where the dead bodies were lying.” “Immaterial and irrelevant lacunas in the investigation would not entitle an accused to benefit of the doubt. Misplaced leniency would result in miscarriage of justice especially in cases like the present one where a mother and her two daughters have died a homicidal death at the hands of the accused.”
 on 30 04 2021 on 01 05 apeal.904.2018 final.docIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 904 OF 2018Ashok Dhondiram Dhavale}AppellantVersusThe State of Maharashtra}Respondent Mr. Nitin Jadhav for the Appellant.Ms. P.P. Shinde APP for the State. CORAM:SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV &N.R. BORKAR JJ.RESERVED ON :FEBRUARY 24 2021.PRONOUNCED ON:APRIL 30 2021.JUDGMENT : 1.The Appellant herein is convicted of the offence punishableunder section 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced tosuffer for life and fine of Rs.5000 in default simple imprisonmentfor six months passed by the learned Sessions Judge Raigad Alibagvide judgment and order dated 8th June 2018 in Sessions Case No. 96of 2015. Hence this appeal.2.Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appealare as follows: Varsha on 30 04 2021 on 01 05 apeal.904.2018 final.doca)Deepali Shindedaughter of Leelabai andthe elder sister of Manisha and Poonam called upon hermother Leelabai on 12th February 2015. Her cellphone wasswitched off and therefore she called upon her youngersister Manisha. Her mother was residing at MaldevShedashi Tal Pen along with Manisha and Poonam.b)Upon enquiry with Manisha she learnt that hermother had gone to visit her brother house 5 days ago.Deepali frantically kept on calling her mother but to herutter dismay found her phone switched off and therefore she called upon her maternal aunt at Kudgiri. Upon enquiry she learnt that her mother had not visited their house andtherefore she was constrained to enquire with her relatives.The whereabouts of her mother could not be traced and hercellphone was switched off. She then started callingManisha and found that the cellphone of Manisha was alsoswitched off. She learnt from her relative Anil Sawant thatLeelabai was not in the village for the preceding 3 days. Shethen visited her maternal home at Maldev and met herVarsha on 30 04 2021 on 01 05 apeal.904.2018 final.doccousin SachinPW.5 Pramod Salvi the panch for recovery of letters betweenManisha and the accused and a chain with a SwastikPendant 4 photos out of which one photo was of Manishaand the accused Ashok. PW.6 Circle Inspector who hasdrawn the sketch of the place from where the dead bodieswere discovered. PW.9 Dhananjay the nodal officer of TataTelly Services. PW.10 Dr. Rohan Thorat who conductedautopsy on the dead bodies of deceased Leelabai Manishaand Poonam. PW.11 Ravi Pardeshi the Nodal Officer fromVodaphone. PW.12 Jitendra Vankoti police officer who wasattached to Pen Police and was assigned the investigation ofCrime No. 70 2015 PW.13 Muneshwar Sarang who was alsoa part of the investigation in Crime No. 70 2015 at the timeof recovery of articles at the behest of accused Ashok. 3.PW.1 Deepali Shinde has deposed before the Court theincident from 12th February 2015 she had disclosed about the factsdivulged to her by Sachin Sawant and identification of the dead bodiesVarsha on 30 04 2021 on 01 05 apeal.904.2018 final.docand the articles seized at the behest of the accused. She has proved themissing complaint which is at Exhibit 16 filing of the F.I.R. which is atExhibit 18. She has deposed in consonance with the F.I.R.and articlewhich happened to be the photosof her mother and sister respectively. She has also proved the letterVarsha on 30 04 2021 on 01 05 apeal.904.2018 final.docdated 26th October 2012 to be in the hand writing of her sisterManisha which is marked at Article ‘34 2’ and has categorically statedthat the letter dated 30th October 2012 is not in the hand writing of hersister Manisha. Despite a lengthy cross examination the evidence ofPW.1 could not be shattered by the defence.5.PW.2 Sachin Sawant happens to be the cousin of PW.1 andthe deceased Manisha and Poonam. He has substantiated that he haddisclosed to PW.1 about the love affair between Manisha and theaccused and as a consequence of the quarrel with the villagers theaccused was driven out of the village. He has affirmed the suggestionthat Manisha and the accusedappellant were in love with each otherfor almost a year before her mother learnt about it. That he had seendeceased Leelabai on 9th February 2015 as he had accompanied her toTaloja Pimpri for a naming ceremony. He had also seen deceasedManisha and Poonam on 9th February 2015 itself but he had notinformed PW.1 that they were missing from the village.6.It is admitted in the cross examination that PW.1 was notaware of love affair between deceased Manisha and the accused no.1.Varsha on 30 04 2021 on 01 05 apeal.904.2018 final.docAccording to him the villagers had seen Leelabai leaving the housealone. However none of the villagers knew about the disappearance ofthe sisters. He has deposed that it was within his knowledge that theaccused no.1 was working in Khalapur positive company.7.PW.3Shailesh Joshi is the panch for discovery of the deadbodies of the deceased and recovery of the cellphone of dual sim cardof Karbonn company and another cellphone of Tata Docomo company the production of the Photographs Article 3 and 4 Aadhar Card Article 6 Sim card Article 10 Pan card Article 7 ATM Card Article 9 4 currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100 and of Rs. 10 one Greencard Article 8. The panchnama is at ‘Exhibit 27’. He has also provedthe Memorandum Panchnama of the accused for disclosure of the deadbodies which is at ‘Exhibit 28 A’ and the discovery panchnama at‘Exhibit 29’. He has further deposed that there was seizure of thesimple oily earth simple earth sandal and the inner wear of thevictim. They had also seized a Wallet containing election card asecurity bank card a card of one political party and 7 photographs ofmale and females which was seized and sealed and marked at ‘Exhibit 30’. The panchnama of the clothes of the deceased is at ‘Exhibit 31’.Varsha on 30 04 2021 on 01 05 apeal.904.2018 final.docThe scene of offence was shown by the accused no.2 and thepanchnama is at ‘Exhibit 32’. It is suggested in the cross examinationthat he happened to be a habitual panch of the police. However according to him he had visited the Tehsil office at Pen on 19th April2015. That the police station and Tehsil Office are in the samecompound and at the request of the police he had agreed to act as apanch. To a Court question as to whether the two cellphones wereswitched on. He has replied that said cellphones were sealed at theplace of seizure and therefore there was no question of switchingthem on. He had visited the police station on more than 2 to 3occasions to act as a panch in the present case. He has denied thesuggestion that on 24th April 2015 itself the police had informed himabout the place from where the dead bodies were to be seized. He hasdenied the suggestion that the foul smell emanating from the deadbodies was emanating upto the main road and has further stated thatin fact dead bodies were lying at a distance of more than 2 kms. fromthe road and the other two dead bodies were at the distance of 200feet from the place where the first dead body was found. According tohim the accused no.2 had led the police to Raghuvir Hill on 1st May2015. It was the same place which was already shown by the accused Varsha on 30 04 2021 on 01 05 apeal.904.2018 final.docappellant and that a bag was found at the said place containing ArticleNo2. 49 to 51 and that a panchnama was drawn.8.PW.4 Shalaka Patane is the panch for inquest panchnama which is at ‘Exhibits 36 to 38’. She is the member of Mahila DakshataSamitee. The inquest panchnama at Exhibit 36 shows that thepanchnama was conducted at the scene of offence itself.9.PW.5 Pramod Salvi has proved the seizure of golden colourchain and locket from house of accused appellant at village Shirgaonand the chits exchanged between Manisha and Ashok. He was also apanch for the identification of the said articles by PW.1.10.PW.6 Neminath Bambarkar was working as a CircleInspector at Kolawandi Tal Khed. He has drawn the sketch of the spot.The sketch mark is at Exhibit 46.11.Upon perusal of Exhibit 46 it appears that there is forestarea behind the Raghuvir Hill. In the forest area the dead body ofLeelabai was found and in the location of the dam two dead bodiesVarsha1 on 30 04 2021 on 01 05 apeal.904.2018 final.docwere found. It is clear from the sketch that the foul smell of the deadbodies could not have emanated up to the main road from the ghat.There is internal unpaved roadof the Indian Evidence Act. The CDRclearly shows that there are several calls made by PW.1 to her mothereversince 12th February 2015.14.PW.10 Dr. Rohan Thorat had performed Autopsy on deadbodies of all three deceased. According to him they were in advancestage of de composition which is mentioned in column no. 12 of thepostmortem notes. It is admitted that since the dead bodies were in anadvance stage of decomposition cause of death could not bedetermined. The postmortem notes are at ‘Exhibit 64 65 and 66’. Hehad also noticed the maggots at certain places on the basis of which hehas determined that the death of the deceased might have been causedprior to three weeks to three months of the postmortem. He has ruledout sexual assault on the basis of vaginal swab and anal swab. TheDNA reports were positive. It is admitted that the death of all the threedeceased had occurred almost at the same time.15.PW.12 Jitendra Vankoti was entrusted with theinvestigation of Crime No. 715 from 25th April 2015.Varsha1 on 30 04 2021 on 01 05 apeal.904.2018 final.doc16.PW.13 Munishwar Sarang was assigned the work ofinvestigation from 19th April 2015. According to him he had perusedthe copy of FIR in Crime No. 715 and in the course ofinvestigation he has proved the memorandum and recovery of thephotos a wallet containing Aadhar Card Sim card Pan card ATMCard 4 currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100 and of Rs. 10 oneGreen card and the recovery of the cellphone of Leelabai.17.He has deposed before the Court that it had transpired inthe course of investigation that Leelabai and her two daughters hadcome to village Malshed on 9th February 2015 for attending namingceremony and thereafter their whereabouts were not known noranyone had seen them. He had recorded the statement of thewitnesses. He has also proved the memorandum and discovery of deadbodies and described the place from where the bodies were discovered.He was investigating the said offence till the noon of 24th April 2015and thereafter the investigation was handed over to PW.12 P.I. Vankoti.It is admitted that Manisha and Poonam had not lodged missing reportabout their mother Leelabai at Pen Police Station.Varsha1 on 30 04 2021 on 01 05 apeal.904.2018 final.doc18.It is admitted in the cross examination that the accusedappellant was brought to the police station on 19th April 2015. It isclarified that the accused was taken into custody pursuant to thesuspicion expressed by PW.1.19.It is admitted that the name of the accused was not there inthe missing report and the missing report was only in respect ofLeelabai. It is also admitted that the deceased was living in Maldevitself and were lastly seen on 9th February 2015.20.PW.12 Jitendra Vankoti was assigned the work ofinvestigation in crime no. 715 from 25th April 2015. He was alsoa part of the investigating agency. He has deposed about the stepstaken by him in the course of investigation which in fact is provedthrough PW.3. Shailesh Joshi.21. After a detailed enquiry Dipali lodged a missing reportabout missing of her sister on 19th April 2015. On 19th April 2015 shehad expressed her suspicion against Ashok Dhawale she continued tosearch for her mother and her sister and enquiring about them at allpossible places.Varsha1 on 30 04 2021 on 01 05 apeal.904.2018 final.doc22.On 25th April 2015 she received a phone call from PenPolice Station and she learnt from the police that on the basis of hersuspicion they had arrested the accused Ashok DhavaleAIR 258Varsha1 on 30 04 2021 on 01 05 apeal.904.2018 final.doclacuna in the prosecution evidence the accused and not theprosecution would be entitled to get the benefit of that…’26.The learned counsel has also placed reliance on thejudgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kishore Chand v s. State ofHimachal Pradesh2 has held as follows : ‘In a case of circumstantial evidence. all the circumstances from whichthe conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully and cogentlyestablished. All the facts so established should be consistent only withthe hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The proved circumstancesshould be of a conclusive nature and definite tendency unerringlypointing towards the guilt of the accused. They should be such as toexclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. Thecircumstances must be satisfactorily established and the provedcircumstances must bring home the offences to the accused beyond allreasonable doubt. It is not necessary that each circumstances by itselfbe conclusive but cumulatively must form unbroken chain of eventsleading to the proof of the guilt of the accused. If those circumstancesor some of them can be explained by any of the reasonable hypothesisthen the accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis.In assessing the evidence imaginary possibilities have no role to play.What is to be considered are ordinary human probabilities. In otherwords when there is no direct wit ness to the commission of murderand the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence thecircumstances relied on must be fully established. The chain of eventsfurnished by the circumstances should be so far complete as not toleave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with theinnocence of the accused. If any of the circumstances proved in a caseare consistent with the innocence of the accused or the chain of thecontinuity of the circumstances is broken the accused is entitled to thebenefit of the doubt’.27.Per contra the learned APP submits that implicit reliancecan be placed on the evidence of PW.1 PW.2 PW.3 PW.12 and PW.13.That the bodies were discovered at the instance of the accused2(1990) AIR 2140Varsha1 on 30 04 2021 on 01 05 apeal.904.2018 final.docappellant and that is sufficient to hold that he is the perpetrator of theCrime. That the accused had also misled PW.1 and had called her to aremote village with a further caution that she shall come alone.Fortunately she had contacted the police. The belongings of thedeceased were recovered from the custody of the accused. That thedeceased had no enmity with any person. It is also submitted that theaccused cannot claim benefit from the lacunas in the course ofinvestigation and finally that the prosecution had proved it’s casebeyond reasonable doubt.28.Upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence adduced bythe prosecution and upon hearing the respective counsel the facts thatemerge for consideration can be summed up as follows: Firstly that PW.1 was trying to contact her mother Leelabaifrom 9th April 2015. That she had also called upon her sister Manishaand had learnt that Leelabai was missing since 9th April 2015. It istherefore clear that Manisha and Poonam had died subsequently. TheCDR clearly establishes the calls made by PW.1 as well as the callsreceived by PW.1. Varsha1 on 30 04 2021 on 01 05 apeal.904.2018 final.docSecondly it is true that the accused was arrested on 18thApril 2015. On 19th April 2015 the cellphone and photos of Leelabaiwere recovered from his house and on 24th April 2015 he finally led thepolice to the place where all the 3 dead bodies were discovered at thebehest of the accused. On the same day PW.1 was informed by thepolice and on 26th April 2015 the bodies were identified by PW.1. Thegolden chain with Swastik Pendant normally adorned by Manisha wasrecovered from the custody of the accused i.e. it was found in a bagfrom his house at his behest the same was identified by PW.1. Theinformation given by the accused led to the discovery of a fact that themissing persons had died a few days ago and their decomposed bodieswere traced at the behest of none other than the accused. 29.At this stage it would be apposite to place reliance on theland mark judgment of the Privy Council in the case of PulukuriKottaya v s. King Emperor3 has held as follows: “9... Section 27 which is not artistically worded provides an exceptionto the prohibition imposed by the preceding section and enablescertain statements made by a person in police custody to be proved.The condition necessary to bring the section into operation is that thediscovery of a fact in consequence of information received from aperson accused of any offence in the custody of a Police officer must be3(1947) AIR 67Varsha1 on 30 04 2021 on 01 05 apeal.904.2018 final.docdeposed to and thereupon so much of the information as relatesdistinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. The sectionseems to be based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered inconsequence of information given some guarantee is afforded therebythat the information was true and accordingly can be safely allowed tobe given in evidence but clearly the extent of the informationadmissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered towhich such information is required to relate. Normally the section isbrought into operation when a person in police custody produces fromsome place of concealment some object such as a dead body a weapon or ornaments said to be connected with the crime of which theinformant is accused. Mr. Megaw for the Crown has argued that insuch a case the "fact discovered" is the physical object produced andthat any information which relates distinctly to that object can beproved. Upon this view information given by a person that the bodyproduced is that of a person murdered by him that the weaponproduced is the one used by him in the commission of a murder orthat the ornaments produced were stolen in a dacoity would all beadmissible. If this be the effect of Section 27 little substance wouldremain in the ban imposed by the two preceding sections onconfessions made to the police or by persons in police custody. Thatban was presumably inspired by the fear of the legislature that aperson under police influence might be induced to confess by theexercise of undue pressure. But if all that is required to lift the ban bethe inclusion in the confession of information relating to an objectsubsequently produced it seems reasonable to suppose that thepersuasive powers of the police will prove equal to the occasion andthat in practice the ban will lose its effect. On normal principles ofconstruction their Lordships think that the proviso to Section 26 addedby Section 27 should not be held to nullify the substance of thesection. In their Lordships view it is fallacious to treat the "factdiscovered" within the section as equivalent to the object produced thefact discovered embraces the place from which the object is producedand the knowledge of the accused as to this and the information givenmust relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user or thepast history of the object produced is not related to its discovery in thesetting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person incustody that "I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house"does not lead to the discovery of a knife knives were discovered manyyears ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealedin the house of the informant to his knowledge and if the knife isproved to have been used in the commission of the offence the factdiscovered is very relevant. But if to the statement the words be added"with which I stabbed A" these words are inadmissible since they donot relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant’.Varsha2 on 30 04 2021 on 01 05 apeal.904.2018 final.doc30.The prosecution has relied upon so much of informationwhich was given to the accused. The submission of the learnedcounsel that at the most it can be said that the accused had knowledgeof the place where the dead body was found and does not prove thatthe accused had caused homicidal death cannot be taken intoconsideration for the simple reason 1) That the bodies weredecomposed and beyond identification. 2) The bodies were found inthe forest area far from the main road. The accused is not a resident ofthat locality and neither it is a road commonly used by passers by andif so he ought to have disclosed the source of his knowledge.3) There isno explanation as to why his wallet was found on the spot close to thedead body.31.Thirdly PW.3 has proved that at the scene of offence awallet containing the driving license of the accused affixed with hisPhotograph a card of Royal Twinkle Star Club belonging to theaccused the election card of the accused the visiting card of a politicalleader a passport size photo of the accused the passport size photo ofa woman and other photographs. This would by itself show that he isthe perpetrator of the offence. Varsha2 on 30 04 2021 on 01 05 apeal.904.2018 final.doc32.Fourthly the photograph of deceased Leelabai hercellphone from which he had purportedly called PW.1 were recoveredfrom his house. The tower location establishes that the calls were madeby none other than the accused. The photograph of Manisha and theletter dated 26th October 2012 addressed by her to the accused werealso recovered from his custody PW.1 has identified the hand writing ofthe deceased Manisha who happens to be her sister and therefore itwas not necessary to send the same to the hand writing expert. Thecontents of the letter as is reflected in Para 26 of the judgment of thetrial Court also needs to be taken into consideration as the contentswould prove there was rather a love affair between Manisha and theaccused.33.Witnesses may lie but circumstances speak for themselves.In a case of circumstantial evidence if the material collected in thecourse of investigation are interlinked the same has to consideredaccordingly. A logical inference has to be drawn. What needs to beappreciated and considered is the cumulative effect of thecircumstances which must be such as to negate the innocence of theaccused and the said circumstances lead to the only conclusion that theVarsha2 on 30 04 2021 on 01 05 apeal.904.2018 final.docaccused is the perpetrator of the Crime. Moreover there is no materialon record to show that prior to the information given by the accusedthere was any possibility for the police to know the site where the deadbodies were lying. The material on record is otherwise. The stationdiary at ‘Exhibit 113’ would show that the police had gone forpatrolling on the road on 23rd April 2015 but it was only on the mainhighway the place where the bodies were discovered at the behest ofthe accused is not visible from the main road.34.At this juncture it would be apt to refer to the judgment ofthe Apex Court in the case of Ram Avtaar v s. StateAIR 1692Varsha2 on 30 04 2021 on 01 05 apeal.904.2018 final.docdoubt is without any relevance. The accused cannot take the benefit ofthe admission of the Doctorthat the bodies were not referredto anatomy expert. A suggestion that the dead bodies were not of themissing person is falsified and set at rest by the DNA report which is at‘Exhibit 69’ and reads as follows: 1. For all the 15 different genetic systems analyzed withthe PCR DNA of nail clippings of Leelabai Bapu Sawantmatched the obligate maternal alleles present in the DNA ofDeepali Prashant Shinde in F.S.I.M.L. Case No. DNA 614 15at all loci.2.For all the 15 different genetic systems analyzed withthe PCR DNA of nail clippings of Leelabai Bapu Sawantmatched the obligate maternal alleles present in the DNA ofnail clippings of Manisha Bapu Sawant at all loci.3.For all the 15 different genetic systems analyzed withthe PCR DNA of nail clippings of Leelabai Bapu Sawantmatched the obligate maternal alleles present in the DNA ofnail clippings of Poonam Bapu Sawant at all loci.36.Immaterial and irrelevant lacunas in investigation wouldnot entitle an accused to benefit of doubt. A misplaced leniency wouldresult in miscarriage of justice especially in cases like the present onewhere a mother and her two daughters have died a homicidal death atthe hands of the accused. The Apex Court in the case of C. Muniappanv s. State of T.N.5 has held as follows: 5(2010) 9 SCC 567Varsha2 on 30 04 2021 on 01 05 apeal.904.2018 final.doc‘There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However it is tobe examined as to whether there is any lapse by the I.O. and whetherdue to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The lawon this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itselfcannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designedor negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctoryinvestigation the faith and confidence of the people in the criminaljustice administration would be eroded. Where there has beennegligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions etc.which resulted in defective investigation there is a legal obligation onthe part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence de hors suchlapses carefully to find out whether the said evidence is reliable ornot and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapsesaffected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore theinvestigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminaltrial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed todepend solely on the probity of investigation’.37.In view of the above discussion we do not find any reasonto interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court. The appeal deservesto be dismissed. Hence we pass the following order: ORDERa)The appeal is dismissed.b)In the eventuality that the appellant is onemergency bail parole he shall surrender before theSessions Court Raigad Alibag within eight weeks. Varsha2 on 30 04 2021 on 01 05 apeal.904.2018 final.docc)The conviction of the accused for the offencepunishable under section 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Codeis upheld.d)The sentence of fine is maintained.38.The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV J)Varsha2 