Faulty Investigation Cannot Be Ground To Discard Credible Material Evidence Proved By Prosecution: Supreme Court

Supreme Court, in a significant judgment, held that a faulty or insensitive investigation cannot be a singular ground to discard credible material evidence produced by the prosecution. A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed that while investigating agencies are expected to conduct probes with sensitivity, especially in cases involving multiple fatalities, the discovery of incriminating articles supported by medical testimony remains a valid basis for conviction.

The case originated from the 2002 murder of four members of a family in Satna, Madhya Pradesh. The appellant, Upendra Khare, along with co-accused persons, was alleged to have entered the house of the deceased, administered sedative injections (Calmpose), and subsequently murdered them using sharp weapons. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC on four counts, a decision subsequently upheld by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

The primary question before the court was whether a conviction based on circumstantial evidence could be sustained when the investigation was admittedly faulty. The court was also called upon to determine if the recovery of incriminating articles under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act remains admissible even if the independent panch witnesses turn hostile.

The Supreme Court focused extensively on the relationship between the quality of the investigation and the weight of the evidence recovered during the probe. The bench acknowledged that the investigation in this specific matter was "not up to the mark," particularly given the gravity of the crime involving four deaths.

Faulty Investigation Does Not Automatically Vitiate Credible Evidence

The Court observed that even if an investigation is deficient, it does not provide a blanket license to discard other material evidence that successfully links the accused to the crime. The bench noted that the recovery of injection phials and syringes at the instance of the appellant, which corroborated the medical findings of sedative traces in the deceased's bodies, formed a strong evidentiary link.

"But merely the fact that the investigation was not up to the mark cannot be the reason for this Court to discard the other material evidence brought by the prosecution in support of its case."

Regarding the appellant's contention that the independent witnesses to the recovery had turned hostile, the Court reiterated the settled legal position. It held that the testimony of an Investigating Officer (IO) can be relied upon to prove recoveries even if the panch witnesses do not support the prosecution's version.

Hostility Of Seizure Witnesses Not A Ground To Reject IO’s Testimony

The bench referred to the precedent in Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, noting that recovery is not vitiated merely because panch witnesses turned hostile. The Court emphasized that if the evidence of the investigating officer who recovered the material objects is convincing, the recovery remains an important piece of evidence that cannot be discarded lightly.

"merely on account of the panch witnesses turning hostile cannot be a ground to discard this important piece of evidence, if the recovery is proved through the investigating officer."

The Court also examined the medical evidence provided by the medical officer, Dr. B.L. Gupta (PW-17). The post-mortem reports confirmed that the deaths were caused by shock due to external and internal injuries, and significantly, traces of Calmpose (diazepam) were found in the bodies. This directly linked the articles recovered from the appellant to the methodology of the crime.

Scientific Evidence Corroborating The Chain Of Circumstances

The Court found that the presence of diazepam in the viscera report, combined with the recovery of used syringes and phials at the instance of the appellant, created a just and proper appreciation of evidence. The bench dismissed the argument that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete, noting that the recoveries were rightly connected with the accused.

"those materials produced by the prosecution are relevant, acceptable and rightly connected these circumstances with the appellants."

The Court finally addressed the argument regarding the number of persons convicted. Although the appellant argued that the conviction under Section 149 IPC was unsustainable as fewer than five persons were ultimately convicted, the Court found the evidence of individual participation in the murders sufficient to sustain the conviction under Section 302 IPC.

The Supreme Court concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of the appellant for the murder of four persons was sustained, reaffirming that material evidence and scientific corroboration override procedural lapses in an investigation.

Date of Decision: May 25, 2026