Shiv Shankar Singh vs. State of Bihar|| Case Summary || AIR 2011 SC 447 || Fair Investigation

Fair Investigation

FACTS

On December 6, 2004, a dacoity occurred at the house of Shiv Shankar Singh and his brother Kameshwar Singh, during which Gopal Singh, Kameshwar’s son, was killed, and valuables were looted. Shiv Shankar lodged FIR No. 147/2004, naming Ramakant Singh, Anand Kumar Singh, and 15 others under Sections 396/398 IPC. Kameshwar filed a second FIR (No. 151/2004) under Section 156(3) CrPC, alleging that Shiv Shankar, Bhola Singh, and Shankar Thakur killed Gopal over a property dispute. The police filed a final report on the first FIR, declaring it false, but a chargesheet was filed against Shiv Shankar and others under Sections 302, 302/34, and 506 IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, convicted Shiv Shankar and Bhola Singh, sentencing them to life imprisonment, and the High Court upheld this.

ISSUES

1. Can two FIRs for the same incident (dacoity and murder) be legally investigated when versions differ?

2. Did the prosecution prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and was the investigation fair?

RELEVANT LAWS

1. Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973: Allows a magistrate to order an investigation into a cognizable offense.

2. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860: Provides punishment for murder, including life imprisonment.

3. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: Ensures the right to a fair trial and due process as part of the right to life and personal liberty.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court in Shiv Shankar Singh vs. State of Bihar set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found no eyewitnesses to the dacoity or murder and noted the prosecution’s reliance on a single witness—a close relative of the deceased—whose testimony was unreliable. The police investigation was deemed unfair, as they failed to record statements of key witnesses or collect physical evidence linking the accused to the crime. The Court emphasized the importance of fair investigation and procedural fairness, allowing the registration of two FIRs for the same incident if versions differ, but clarified that the prosecution must meet the burden of proof.

Vinita Pathak