Each and every suggestion of the defence at the investigation need not lead the investigator to follow it
It appears that the suspicion was entertained on a mere suggestion made by the defence to the Investigating Officer who admitted that after the F.I.R. was recorded, Kirtan Bhuyan appellant along with two others appeared before him and told him that it was being said in the village that Bachha Naik P. W. 3 had killed his grand-mother. The trial Judge went on to assume that thereafter a duty was cast on the prosecution to disprove or demolish such suggestive defence and that neither during the investigation nor at the trial stage did the prosecution venture to do so. To this approach, the High Court did not agree and we tend to agree with the High Court. Each and every suggestion of the defence at the investigation need not lead the investigator to follow it. Had there been a counter version and the suggestion was that the Investigating Officer had wrongly not recorded a cross F.I.R. it might have been different matter. Various avenues were then open to Kirtan Bhuyan and his co-accused to approach the higher officers in the police hierarchy or to approach the District Magistrate for the purpose. Furthermore a criminal complaint could have been filed if the counter version had to be deployed. The suspicion entertained by the defence could thus be of no consequences for that alone could not lead to discredit the eye-witnesses to the crime.
Supreme Court of India
Kirtan Bhuyan And Others vs State Of Orissa on 31 March, 1992
Equivalent citations: AIR 1992 SC 1579, 1992 CriLJ 2325, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 558
Bench: M M Punchhi, M F Beevi, S Agrawal
