This is a classic case where the Investigating Officer had conducted a shabby investigation and could not prove even a single piece of evidence to connect the chain of circumstances.
[13/06, 12:21] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxnEk2feyGnuR4ocsjPGv9Pf-v6dx4sTHn?si=ENRkduQY_L1qxuIF
[13/06, 12:22] sekarreporter1: “This is a classic case where the Investigating Officer had conducted a shabby investigation and could not prove even a single piece of evidence to connect the chain of circumstances. However, being curious as to how the Trial Court had recorded the guilt of the accused, we had perused the entire judgment. To our utter dismay, we found that in order to establish one of the main circumstances, namely motive, the Trial Court had placed reliance on the statement of P.W.4 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as well as under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In the same portion of the judgment, the Trial Court had also relied upon the confession statement of A1 to A3 and observed that these statements were not disproved by the defence. We fail to understand as to how the Trial Court could be insensitive to the basic principles in appreciating the evidences before it and recording the guilt of the accused on the basis of the confession statements of the accused before the Investigation Officer, as well as the statements of P.W.4 made under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which are impermissible.”
