“55. There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. (Vide Chandrakant Luxman v. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 3 SCC 626, Karnel Singh v. State of M.P., (1995) 5 SCC 518, Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 4 SCC 517, Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1999) 2 SCC 126, State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy, (1999) 8 SCC 715, Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 518, Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat (2002) 3 SCC 57 and Ram Bali v. State of U.P., (2004) 10 SCC 598)”
