Integrity, competence essential to be a cop: SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has ruled that the police is a disciplined force responsible for maintaining law and public order in the society and any person who wants to be a part of it should be of utmost integrity and uprightness with an unimpeachable, spotless character and clean antecedents.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and comprising Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, upheld the verdict of Sindh Service Tribunal removing a police official on account of a defective investigation in a minor’s rape case.

Ikrmuddin Rajput, a sub inspector in the investigation Wing of Police Station, Mominabad, District West, Karachi, had filed an appeal in the apex court, challenging the Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi, removing him for conducting defective investigation in the offence of rape of a minor girl aged about seven years.

As per the case, the medical examination of the victim established rape. The petitioner, however, as the investigation officer (IO) in the case, reduced the actual commission of rape into an attempt to commit the rape. The allegation against the IO in the case is that due to an unfair and dishonest investigation, he converted a rape case registered under Section 376 PPC into Section 511 PPC.

However, the petitioner, throughout the departmental proceedings, never denied that the father of the victim, who lodged the FIR for the offence of rape, was an eyewitness of the incident. The petitioner never disputed the medical report as well.

“No doubt, an Investigating Officer plays a crucial role in the administration of the criminal justice system and the constituent of investigation report and its worth keeps hold of plenteous value and repercussions on the outcome of any criminal case,” said the eight-page verdict authored by Justice Mazhar.

The court, however, noted that at times, a botched-up investigation can become a top impediment and stumbling block in the administration of justice, either intentionally with the aim to favour the accused or unintentional due to inefficiency, incompetence or unskillfulness of the IO.

The court held that the criminal justice system signifies the procedure for adjudicating criminal cases in order to award a sentence to the culprits for the offence committed by them; and the foremost objective is to penalise the offenders subject to the proof whether the offense has been committed or not, and this very important aspect is attached with the burden of proof on the prosecution which has direct nexus with the investigation report and the material and evidence collected by the IO in discharge of his sacred duty to bring out the truth without engaging in any manipulation, favouritism or exceeding the bounds of the law.

“A defective investigation gradually contaminates the judicial process and poses a hazard to human rights,” the judgement said, adding that it is the duty of superior officers and officers in charge of police stations to ensure that the IO follows the provisions of law conscientiously, without any breach, conducting an impartial and honest investigation with the sole aim of bringing the truth to light. The court noted that the task of investigation is an art and for attaining the proficiency in the job of investigation, extensive on job training is also required to ensure integrity and uprightness, without any temptation for personal gains or advantages.

“It is also a foundational pathway for the prosecution case, and being a sacrosanct duty of an investigation officer, it should be performed without any recklessness, sluggishness or greediness,” said the verdict.

The court held that according to Section 4.(l) CrPC, the term “investigation” includes all the proceedings under the CrPC for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person. The court observed that the importance of this duty or task was also given much significance under Rule 25.2 of the Police Rules 1934 which deals with the power of IO, and under sub-rule 3, it is provided that it is the duty of an IO to find out the truth of the matter under investigation. “His object shall be to discover the actual facts of the case and to arrest the real offender or offenders,” said the verdict, adding that he should not commit himself prematurely to any view of the facts for or against any person. The court cited Section 166 (2) PPC which lays down that whoever being a public servant entrusted with the investigation of a case fails to carry out the investigation properly or diligently or fails to pursue the case in any court of law properly and in breach of his duties should be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. “Whereas Section 27 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 provides that if an Anti-Terrorism Court or a High Court comes to conclusion during the course of or at the conclusion of the trial that the investigating officer, or other concerned officers have failed to carry out investigation properly or diligently or have failed to pursue the case properly and in breach of their duties… it shall be lawful for such Court or, as the case may be, the High Court, to punish the delinquent officers with imprisonment which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both by resort to summary proceedings,” the verdict said.

“While a similar provision has been incorporated under Section 22 of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act 2021, which explicates that whoever, being a public servant, entrusted to investigate scheduled offences, fails to carry out the investigation properly or diligently or causes the conduct of false investigation or fails to pursue the case in any court of law properly and in breach of duties, shall be guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment of either description which may extend to three years and with fine,” the court held. “In view of the above discussion, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgement passed by the learned Tribunal. Consequently, this Civil Petition is dismissed and leave is refused,” the court concluded.