The Himachal Pradesh High Court has directed the state government to oversee the actions of investigating officers and to take necessary steps against those who submit reports with biased evidence to implicate individuals.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has instructed the State Government, the Director General of Police, and the Director of Prosecution to create a system to oversee the actions of Investigating Officers, Prosecutors, and Government Advocates. This system should ensure that they do not submit reports that ignore all evidence and only include selective documents to wrongfully accuse someone. The State appealed to the High Court after a Special Judge acquitted the respondents in a Corruption Case involving several sections of the Indian Penal Code. The Division Bench, led by Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bipin Chander Negi, emphasized that the Investigating Agency and Prosecutors must seek the truth to deliver justice, rather than trying to frame individuals to complete their cases while disregarding evidence that proves innocence. They reminded that we live in a democratic society that aims to protect the innocent under the Rule of Law.
An anonymous complaint was sent to the Chairman of the H.P. Board of School Education in Dharamshala, claiming that Chohan Singh had taken the 10+1 examination but was placed in a compartment for English. He did not take the supplementary exam, resulting in an absent mark for that subject. The complaint alleged that he colluded with a dealing Clerk to illegally change his roll number from 20073 to 20074, altering the marks sheet to show he scored 41 marks in English under the new roll number.
The accused were mainly charged with cheating the H.P. Board of School Education by falsely claiming that Chohan Singh took a supplementary exam in September 2004 to pass his English subject, even though he did not actually take the exam. It was also claimed that Kishan Chand and Laxmi Singh, who worked for the Board as Senior Assistant and Junior Assistant, helped Chohan Singh by issuing a fake certificate for him. The Bench observed that the evidence presented showed two different names for Chohan Singh’s mother: Roshana Devi and Churamani. The Bench stated, “Based on the evidence, it cannot be conclusively said that the respondents changed the name of Chohan Singh’s mother from Roshana Devi to Churamani, especially with the involvement of other co-accused.”
Additionally, it was noted that there were no documents showing that the changes to Roll Nos. 20073 and 20076 to 20074 and 20077 were against the award list or the admit card for Chohan Singh and Maya Devi. The Bench remarked, “The key evidence that could have shown whether Chohan Singh and the other co-accused committed an offense or were innocent, such as the Admit Card, Answer Sheet, Roll Number Slip, and award list, was not provided by the Investigating Agency. The Investigating Officer even admitted to not collecting certain documents that could have proven the accused’s innocence. This behavior is very concerning.”
The Bench stated that whenever there is proof of an accused person’s innocence, the prosecution or Investigating Agency must act justly. They should present all relevant evidence and then submit a report to cancel the FIR or stop the criminal action against the accused if there is enough proof of their innocence. The High Court concluded by instructing the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) of the Government of HP, the Director General of Police, and the Director of Prosecution to provide proper guidance, training, and orientation for all Investigating Officers, Prosecutors, and Government Advocates. This is to ensure fair investigations and prosecutions in all cases, considering all evidence for or against the accused based on the complaint or FIR. The court emphasized the need for a system to monitor the actions of Investigating Officers and Prosecutors, ensuring they do not ignore crucial evidence when submitting reports or challans. This selective use of evidence can lead to unnecessary harassment of individuals and waste public resources, time, and energy, delaying justice in other important cases. Therefore, due to a lack of sufficient evidence to convict the accused, the Bench dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: State of HP v. Chohan Singh & others [Neutral Citation: 2024:HHC:10694-DB]
Appearance:
Appellant : Additional Advocate General Pawan Kumar Nadda
Respondents: Advocates Vinay Thakur, Vishwa Bhushan, Gurmeet Bhardwaj and Anuja Mehta
