Title: Himachal Pradesh High Court Warns Against Selective Evidence in Criminal Cases
Last Updated on November 12, 2024 by Athi Venkatesh
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ordered the State government and Police department to ensure that investigating officers (IOs) and prosecutors do not present selective evidence to trial courts to unfairly frame individuals. In a ruling on November 5, the Division Bench, comprising Justices Vivek Singh Thakur and Bipin Chander Negi, emphasized that investigators and prosecutors must prioritize truth over securing convictions at any cost.
The Court reminded authorities that India, as a democratic welfare state, upholds the protection of the innocent under the rule of law. The Bench criticized investigation practices reminiscent of the colonial era, where withholding key evidence to falsely implicate individuals was common. Instead, it asserted that investigators and prosecutors should disclose all material evidence, including any that may support the accused’s innocence. If sufficient evidence proves an individual’s innocence, the Court noted, authorities should seek to cancel the FIR or stop criminal proceedings altogether.
To ensure fair investigations, the Court instructed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Director General of Police, and Director Prosecution to issue directives and train IOs and prosecutors in fair evidence handling. It also recommended establishing a monitoring system to review the conduct of IOs, prosecutors, and government advocates. This mechanism would ensure accountability, with appropriate action taken against officials presenting selective evidence.
The Court highlighted that framing innocent individuals wastes public resources, time, and energy. It burdens an already overstressed judiciary, striving to resolve backlogged cases while advocating for more courts to handle the caseload effectively.
This order arose from an appeal by the State against the acquittal of individuals in a 2004-2005 cheating case involving tampered examination records. The Court found that the IO had admitted to intentionally omitting evidence favoring the accused, leading the Bench to dismiss the State’s appeal and condemn such selective presentation as a dereliction of duty.
