In the light of Justice, a miserable act by a police officer, whose duty is to provide the security, protection and assistance to the public, has done the act of misleading investigation in a murder case, following which, the Gujarat High Court has given directions to the Trial Court to find out whether police officer of the rank of superintendent of police (SP) has tried to replace the real culprits of the crime, which claimed life of one, with others in order to save them.
The High Court further directed the Trial Court that if the allegations against the SP are found to be true then the Trial Court should intiate action against him as per the provisions of law.
As per the facts of the case, victim namely Ritesh Naliya was attacked and assaulted by the three accused in the intervening night of June 17-18, following which the victims father registered the FIR in Ahmedabad’s Gomtipur police station, on the basis of his dying declaration in which the names of the three accused namely Rohit, Shantilal and Pruthvi were clearly mentioned. The victim also mentioned the name of accused, Rohit, as the assailant in the medical papers.
The Court during the course of proceedings sternly reprimanded the police officer, for his insufficient knowledge regarding evidence and ignoring the chief evidence such as the dying declaration of the victim. The dying declaration is considered as direct evidence against the accused persons, despite of which, it has been stated by the investigator in the charge sheet that there is “lack of circumstantial evidence” against the three accused.
In the course of investigation, a statement of one Mukesh followed by the statement of the complainant, father of the victim, were substituted of those who were named in the FIR with others. However, the complainant in an affidavit stated that the persons named in the FIR were not the assailants of his son since he could not clearly gather the statement of his son, their names were given involuntarily.
The High Court said that the dying declaration of the victim was adequate to identify the assailants and also the weapons used by them and to determine how the attack was executed.
The Court further stated, "Despite such clear statement and the FIR containing the dying declaration of the deceased, the investigator ventured to make a statement in the charge sheet that the persons named in the FIR are not the assailants of the deceased. The investigator has recorded the statement of the relatives of Rohit, whose name has been reiterated by the deceased in the medical case papers, to show the alibi pleaded by them for saving Rohit."
However, the Court has also granted bail to one of the accused who contended that his involvement in the case seems to be doubtful and claimed that there are strong chances that his name has been substituted as an offender in place of the real players of the crime.