There is a subtle difference between a defective investigation and one brought forth by a calculated and deliberate action or inaction. While dealing with a defective investigation, Court is expected to sift evidence available and find out truth. Every case involves a journey towards truth.

We are distressed to note, investigation has not been conducted in a fair manner [Kumar v. State, (2018) 7 SCC 536]. A fair investigation would become a colorable one when there involves a suppression. Suppressing motive, injuries and other existing factors which will effect modifying or altering charge would amount to a perfunctory investigation and, therefore, become a false narrative.

– Hon’ble Justice M.M. Sundresh, Arvind Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, [Criminal Appeal No. 753 of 2017].

_____

It is true, ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus‘ may not have unadulterated application to criminal jurisprudence. Courts have always preferred to do what Mythological Swan, Hamsa is believed to do, namely, to separate milk and water from a mixture of two. The idiom ‘sifting the chaff from the grain’ has become very old and worn out and requires replacement.

M.M. Sundresh J in Arvind Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 2021 SCC Online SC 1099 crystallized this principle as follows: “The principle governing ‘sifting the chaff from the grain’ has to be applied. However, when evidence is inseparable and such an attempt would either be impossible or would make evidence unacceptable, natural consequence would be one of avoidance.”

– Hon’ble Justice V. Ramasubramanian, Ramabora v. State of Karnataka, [Criminal Appeal No. 1697 of 2011] decided on 10.08.2022.

Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1202 remarked, “we may note with deep and profound concern, disappointing standards of Police investigation that seem to be the invariable norm.”

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol, Periyasamy v. State, [Criminal Appeal No. 270 of 2019] decided on 18.03.2024.

_____

It will be relevant to discuss, at this juncture, what is meant by ‘reasonable doubt’. It means, such doubt must be free from suppositional speculation. It must not be a result of minute emotional detailing and it must be actual and substantial and not merely a vague apprehension. A ‘reasonable doubt’ is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense as observed in Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai, (2003) 12 SCC 395.

– Hon’ble Justice N.K. Singh, Goverdhen v. State of Chhattisgarh, [Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 2011] decided on 09.01.2025.