JAMIA HAMDARD

UNIVERSITY
POWER TO
SCHOOL OF LAW
POLICE
INVESTIGA
TION
CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE

SUBMITTED TO – SHOIAB SIR

SUBMITTED BY – ISBA KHAN

ENROLLMENT NO – 2019-342-042

SECTION – A

SEMESTER - 7TH
Introduction
Criminal procedure includes a crucial component called an investigation. "Investigation" is the
initial action taken after a crime is committed or after a police officer receives information about
the commission of an offence. The goal is to track down the offender and bring him to
punishment so that he can be sentenced in agreement with the Code's requirements. Police
officers have the responsibility to look into matters that are cognizable within Section 156 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. In non-cognizable instances, the police officer must acquire a
warrant pursuant to Section 155(2) of the Code in order to conduct an investigation. Section 2(h)
of the Code provides a definition for the word "investigation." Sections 154 through 176 of
Chapter XII of the Code cover.

As per Section 2(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, "investigation" refers to all proceedings
under this Code for the obtaining of evidence undertaken out by a police officer or by a person
(other than a magistrate) who has been found in order by a magistrate in this aspect. [1]

DEFINATION AND MEANING

Investigating an offence entails: Traveling to the scene.

- Examining the case's facts and circumstances.

- The suspect is found and taken into custody.
- Obtaining evidence may involve interviewing the interested parties and having their
statements put in writing.
- Searching for and taking possession of items that are deemed vital.
- forming a moral judgment about whether a case merits trial, and then taking the right
action. [2]

AN OVERVIEW

COGNIZABLE AND NON COGNIZABLE OFFENCE

The cognizable offence has been defined in Section 2(C) of the Code, wherein a Police officer
can arrest without warrant. The offence is of serious nature and is a public wrong, where the
prosecution is done at the discretion of the state. Punishment is given with imprisonment of 3
years or more and with or without fine. Example – Dowry, Rape, Murder, etc.

Non Cognizable offence and case have been defined in Section 2 (l) of the Code, wherein the
police cannot arrest without warrant. The offence is less serious in nature and the prosecution is
done at the initiative of the parties. Punishment may be given not exceeding 3 years of
imprisonment. Example – Assault, Forgery, Defamation, etc.
INFORMATION TO POLLICE OFFICER

When information is disclosed, a cognizable offence is discussed in Section 154 of the code. The
informant must provide the officer in charge of a police station with the information in writing,
or the officer in charge of the police station must put the information into writing. The "First
Information Report" must be read to the informant and signed by him before it can be used. A
woman police officer must record the statement when it comes from a woman who is accused of
committing or attempting to commit any of the offences listed in Sections 326-A, 326-B, 354,
354-A to 354-D, 376, 376-A to 376-E, or 509 IPC.

Once the data has been received by he shall start investigate .

POWER OF POLICE TO INVESTIGATE

Section 156 of the code empowers the officer in charge of a police station to investigate a case in
his territorial jurisdiction without the order of the Magistrate if the offence is cognizable in
nature. The officer may also initiate an investigation on the orders of the Magistrate empowered
under Section 190.
Cases consisting of both Cognizable and Non-Cognizable Offences

According to Section 155(4), when two or more offences are there in a case, of which at least
one is of cognizable nature, and other of non-cognizable nature, then the entire case has to be
dealt as a cognizable case, and the investigating officer will have all the powers and authority as
he has in investigating a cognizable case.

PROCEDURE OF INVESTIGATION

The process of investigation that the police must follow in order to gather evidence is outlined in
Section 157 of the Code. When a police officer in charge of a police station has cause to believe
that a cognizable offence has been committed based on the FIR or any other information so
received, the investigation of a cognizable case starts. It mandates that the Magistrate get quick
notification of the FIR. The officer must then travel personally to the scene to investigate the
facts and circumstances, or he must assign one of his subordinate officers to do so. If necessary,
steps must be made to find and apprehend the suspect.

When the information received by the police officer is not of serious nature, the officer need not
proceed in person or depute some subordinate officer to investigate on the spot. And if no
sufficient ground exists for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case. And
shall state in its report for not complying with the requirements of this section, and notify the
informant that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated.

He shall then send this report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence.

Sending a Report to the Magistrate (Section 158)

A report is sent to the Magistrate which is called the police report. It is sent by the superior
police officer, so as to make the Magistrate aware that a particular case is being investigated by a
police officer. The main objective of sending a report is to enable the Magistrate to control the
investigation and give directions if required under Section 159 of the Code.

The report should be sent to the Magistrate without any delay. In Swati Ram v. State of
Rajasthan, it was held that mere delay in sending the report does not throw away the prosecution
case in its entirety.

At different stages of an investigation, different reports are to be submitted by the police to the
Magistrate. These reports are:

Section 157 of the CRPC requires the officer in charge of the police station to submit a report to
the Magistrate, called a preliminary report.

Section 168 of the CRPC requires a subordinate officer to submit a report to the officer in charge
of the police station.

Section 173 of the CRPC requires that a final report is to be submitted to the Magistrate as after
the investigation gets over.

ORDER OF INVESGATIONBY THE MAGISTRATE

The Magistrate, under Section 159, has been empowered, if he feels necessary, after receiving
the report to direct investigation, or to conduct himself or direct a subordinate Magistrate to hold
a preliminary inquiry. And as held by the Supreme Court, the Magistrate has no power to stop
the investigation after it has started. [3]

ATTENDANCE OF WITNESS

The police officer making the investigation is empowered under Section 160 to require the
attendance of any person as a witness who is acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the
case. The above-mentioned section also provides that no male person or woman who is under the
age of fifteen years shall be required to attend any place other than the one in which the male
person or women resides. The State Government shall make rules for the payment of reasonable
expenses incurred by persons for attending any place other than their residence.

EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES

Any police officer in charge of the investigation, or any other officer responding to a request
from an officer in charge, is authorised and required to question a witness or other individual
who is familiar with the details of the case. Police are granted the right to interview witnesses
under Section 161 of the Code. Witness statements is important due to its power to prove
someone guilty or innocent. The subjects of an inquiry are expected and required to honestly
respond to any inquiries made about such matters. They are not required to properly reply to
inquiries that could result in a criminal or other charge.

RECORDING OF CONFESSION AND STATEMENT

Any magistrate whether metropolitan or judicial, if he has jurisdiction or not in the case, is
empowered under Section 164 to record any statement or confession made to him in the course
of the investigation. But a police officer on whom powers of a magistrate have been conferred
for the time being is not empowered to record the same. The magistrate, before recording the
statement is required to explain it to the person giving the statement that he is not bound to give
it and the statements can be used as evidence against him. The magistrate has to make sure that
the person making the confession is doing it voluntarily. The Magistrate cannot authorize the
detention of that person in police custody if the person refuses to give a statement at any time
before the confession is recorded.

Recording of confession when magistrate has no jurisdiction

A Magistrate who records statements and confession when he does not have the jurisdiction to
do so, he shall forward it to the competent Magistrate who has to inquire into the case or by
whom the trial is to be done

ADMISIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

The confession recorded under section 164 can be used as substantive evidence, without being
formally proved. Record of such confession is admissible as evidence. Entire confession must be
brought on record. The Court must carefully weigh it with other evidence. The Court may reject
part of it.. Where the confession was found rejected, the convictions based on them could not be
sustained.

Non-confessional statements recorded under section 164 is not substantive evidence. But if the
maker of the statement is called as a witness in the trial, his earlier statement can be used for
contradicting his testimony in the Court under section 145 and 157 of the Evidence Act. 
SEARCH BY POLICE OFFICER

A police officer is empowered under Section 165 of the Code to search for any place which he
has reasonable grounds to believe that contains something necessary with respect to the
investigation he is authorized to make.

The grounds for issuing a warrant for search are provided in Section 93(1) of the Code The
search is required to be noted in a diary which is prescribed for this purpose, by the state
government.

WHEN THE INVESTIGATION IS TO BE DONE OUTSIDE INDIA

When the investigating officer or any of his superior officer has reasons to believe that necessary
evidence may be available in a place or country outside India, any criminal court shall issue a
letter of request to the authority of that country or place requesting to examine orally the person
who is supposed to be aware of the facts and circumstances of the case and direct him to produce
all the requisite documents in his possession relating to the case being investigated and also
require to forward all the documents and evidence to the court issuing such letter. The provision
is given under section 166.

PROCEDURE WHEN INVESTIGATION CANNOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN 24

HOURS
Section 167 deals with the procedure when investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours.
The purpose of this section is to ensure liberal democratic ideology. The object is to protect the
accused from atrocities of the police and to give the opportunity to the Magistrate to decide the
question of further custody, to facilitate the investigation, and no detention without trial. For this
purpose, it has been provided that the accused or arrested person cannot be detained for more
than 24 hours. Section 167 is attracted in the following circumstances:

1. When the accused is arrested without a warrant and is detained by the police officer in
his custody.
2. More than 24 hours needed for an investigation.
3. There are grounds to believe that accusation or information against him is well-
founded.
4. The officer in charge of a police station or the investigating officer not below the rank
of sub-inspector forwards the accused for remand before the Magistrate.
The judicial Magistrate to whom the accused is so forwarded may authorize the detention of such
person in such custody for a term not exceeding 15 days. If the Magistrate does not have the
jurisdiction to try the case and considers further detention unnecessary then the accused shall be
further forwarded to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case.

The Magistrate shall authorize the detention of the accused (but not in police custody) if he has
reasons and grounds to believe the necessity of doing so. But in any situation, the Magistrate
cannot order detention for a period exceeding:

1. 90 days, when the person is accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a
period not less than 10 years of imprisonment for life or death.
2. 60 days, when accused of any other offence. And on the expiry of the period of 60
days or 90 days, whatever the case may be, he shall be released on bail if he is able to
furnish sureties.
This period is to be calculated from the date of detention and not from the date of arrest.

If the Judicial Magistrate is absent, the Executive Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate on
whom the powers of a Judicial Magistrate have been conferred for the time being will act. The
Executive Magistrate shall order for detention for a period not exceeding 7 days. If further
detention is to be made, the accused shall be forwarded to the competent Magistrate.

If the order is given by any Magistrate other than the Chief Judicial Magistrate, he shall forward
a copy of his orders also stating the reasons for making so, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

In a Summons Case, if the investigation is not complete within 6 months, the Magistrate is
required to order to stop the investigation unless he has reasons and grounds to believe that
further investigation is necessary for the interest of justice. If the Magistrate has ordered to stop
the investigation and an application is made to the Sessions judge against the order, then the
sessions judge is empowered under Section 167(6) to discard the order given by the Magistrate
under subsection 5, if reasonable grounds exist for doing so.

PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED ON COMPLETION OF INVESTIGATION (S.169-

s.173)
On completion of the investigation, the following procedure is to be followed:

RELEASE OF ACCUSED OF ACCUSED WHENEVIDENCE IS DEFICIENT

When there is not sufficient evidence and reasonable grounds to justify the forwarding of the
accused to the Magistrate, the police officer shall release him on him executing a bond, with or
without sureties, and may direct him to appear before the magistrate when required.

CASES TO BE TO BE SENT TO MAGISTRATE WHEN EVIDENCE SUFFICENT

When the police officer has sufficient evidence and reasonable grounds, he shall forward the
accused to the Magistrate, so that the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence and try the
accused or commit him for trial. If the offence is bailable, the accused shall be given security and
be released on bail, only to appear before the Magistrate when required, and for his day to day
attendance before the Magistrate.

DIARY OF PROCEEDINGS INAN INVESTIGATION (SECTION 172)

This section relates to the contents of a case diary, which every police officer making an
investigation has to maintain. The object of this section is to enable the Magistrate to know what
was the day to day information by a police officer who was investigating the case. Oral
statements of witnesses should not be recorded in this case diary. This diary may be used at trial
or inquiry, not as evidence, but to assist the court in proceeding with the case. 

REPORT OF POLICE OF POLICE ON COMPLETION OF THE INVESTIGATION

Final report of a police officer after the completion of the investigation is to be sent to the
Magistrate under Section 173. This report is generally called a “Chargesheet” or “Challan”.

Where a superior officer has been appointed by the State government, the report shall be sent by
him to the Magistrate. And while the orders of the Magistrate are pending, he shall direct further
investigation to the officer in charge of the police station.
If according to the police officer, a part of the statement in the report submitted by him is not
relevant, he shall request the Magistrate to exclude that part and not consider it. Also, further
investigation can be made even after the submission of the report to the Magistrate

POWER TO SUMMON PERSONS

This section empowers the police to summon witnesses at the inquest to testify the injuries which
the investigating officer has found on the body of the deceased person. But it is not at all
necessary for him to record the statements of the witnesses or get the inquest report signed by
them. The person examined at an inquest is bound to answer truly all the questions except those
which would be incriminating him. Refusal to answer questions is punishable under Section 179
IPC and deliberately giving a false answer is punishable under Section 193 of IPC. The inquest
report is not substantive evidence but may be used for corroborating the evidence given by the
police officer making the inquest report.

CONCLUSION

In criminal law, an investigation is a very detailed process that is carried out according to a set
legal process.

RELEVANT CASE LAW

In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Daud Khan.

If the facts of the case are looked at individually and randomly,

They might create a doubt. However, if they are considered collectively, there is no room for
doubt. The facts collectively are: (i) Nand Singh was shot with a gun. (ii) The bullet extracted
from the body of Nand Singh could have been fired from that gun, or to put it negatively, it
cannot be said that the extracted bullet could not have been fired from the recovered gun.
Nobody questioned this. (iii) The gun-shot was fired from a close distance, but there was no
blackening of Nand Singh’s skin possibly due to his apparel. Nobody questioned this. (iv) Nand
Singh’s death was not immediate and he could have traversed a distance of about 70 (seventy)
feet despite being shot. Nobody questioned this. (v) The medical experts testified that spillage of
blood from the entry wound is not inevitable and so it is possible that Nand Singh’s blood was
not found between the place of the incident and the place where he collapsed. The blood was,
however, found where Nand Singh collapsed. (vi) There were five eye witnesses to the incident
of shooting and they gave consistent statements and identified Daud Khan as the person who
shot Nand Singh. None of these findings and conclusions are perverse. On the contrary, they
have been accepted by the Trial Court and the High Court. We see no reason to take a different
view.

On a consideration of the entire material before us, we have no hesitation in upholding the view
taken by the High Court with regard to the offence committed by Daud Khan and his conviction
for that offence. We see no substance in the appeal filed by the State and find no reason to
reverse the conclusions arrived at by the High Court with regard to the offence committed by
Daud Khan.

REFRENCES

The code of criminal procedure by, S.N.Mishra

And The criminal procedure act, 1973