IO Who Conducted Part Of Investigation Can Be Examined By Prosecution Despite Omission Of His Name In Final Report: Kerala High Court

Justice G. Girish was considering an original petition filed by the accused on being aggrieved by the trial court's order denying his prayer to examine a Deputy Superintendent of Police, who had conducted part of the investigation.

The trial court had dismissed the prayer on two reasons: one, the officer's name was not included in the final report; and two, the evidence was already closed and there is no specific prayer for re-opening evidence.

Noting that the further investigation in the case was conducted by DySP Shanavas in accordance with the directions of the Court, it observed:

“It is obvious from the facts and circumstances of the case that the Deputy Superintendent of Police Mr Shanavas had conducted a portion of the investigation in this case, pursuant to the directions of this Court. However, the name of the above person has not been incorporated in the list of witnesses forming part of the final report and the further report. The omission in the above regard cannot be taken as a reason to disallow the prayer for examining the above person as a witness, since it is found that such examination is necessary for a just decision in the case. So also, the learned Magistrate has wrongfully resorted to technicality in disallowing the prayer for examination of the aforesaid Dy.S.P., by stating in paragraph No.5 of the impugned order that there is no petition to re-open the evidence.”

Finding that the examination of the DySP is necessary for the just decision of the case, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside the dismissal order passed by the trial court.

Case No: O.P. (Crl.) No. 816 of 2024

Case Title: Sunilkumar v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 568

Counsel for the petitioner: S. Jayant, Varghese Sabu, Anoop P. Pillai

Counsel for the respondent: Pushpalatha M.K. (Sr. PP)

Click to Read/Download Judgment