From FIR to Final Report  (A Critical Study of Fair Investigation)

Dr. Jai Prakash Kushwah; Suraj Pratap Singh Kushwah

doi:10.53724/lrd/v10n1.2

Authors

Dr. Jai Prakash Kushwah Advocate, M.P. High Court, Gwalior Ph.D.(Law an Inter-disciplinary Research), Ph.D.(Geographical Crime a Multidisciplinary Research), DLIL, LL.B., LL.M.(Medallist), B.Sc. (Maths), MA (English), MA(Geography) IGD Bombay, EGD Bombay https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0618-363X
Suraj Pratap Singh Kushwah Advocate, M.P. High Court, Gwalior, LL.B., LL.M.(Gold Medallist), B.E. (Electronic Communication). CLAT Meritorious https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8599-1397

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.53724/lrd/v10n1.2

Keywords:

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), Fair Investigation, First Information Report (FIR), Final Report, Charge Sheet, Digital Evidence, Police Accountability, Judicial Oversight, Criminal Justice Reform, Procedural Justice

Abstract

2023 (BNSS), this paper critically analyzes the sequential legal and procedural journey of a criminal case, following its path from the filing of the First Information Report (FIR) to the submission of the Final Report (Charge Sheet or Closure Report). The study specifically evaluates how the procedural changes introduced by the BNSS particularly regarding preliminary inquiry, time limits for investigation, and the use of technology impact the core principle of a fair and impartial investigation. It analyzes the discretionary powers of the investigating agencies, potential systemic biases, and the effect of these factors on the rights of the accused and the victim in the new regime. Key areas of critique include the implementation challenges of new technologies, adherence to stipulated timeframes for investigation completion, and the role of enhanced judicial oversight post-BNSS. The research argues that ensuring a fair investigation remains paramount for upholding the rule of law and seeks to identify procedural and institutional reforms necessary to maximize accountability and effectiveness under the new criminal procedure framework.

References

Pooja Pal v. Union of India (2016) 3 SCC 135

Kumar, R. (2024). Criminal Investigation and Procedural Reform in India. New Delhi: Eastern Book Company.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248

United Nations, Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, 1990.

United Nations Human Rights Committee, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966.

Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1

Pooja Pal v. Union of India (2016) 3 SCC 135

(2014) 2 SCC 1.

(2016) 3 SCC 135.

Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248.

Pooja Pal v. Union of India (2016) 3 SCC 135.

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610.

Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, (1985) 2 SCC 537.

State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222.

Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, (2009) 1 SCC 441.

Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 17 SCC 1.

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.

Rao, A. (2024). Constitutional Compatibility of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), 2023: A Critical Study of Rights Framework under Articles 14, 20, and 21. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.

Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263.

Patel, R. (2024). Victim Participation and Due Process under New Criminal Codes. Criminal Law Journal of India, Vol. 56(2), pp. 117–142.

Sharma, V. (2024). Judicial Oversight and Criminal Procedure Reform in India. Indian Journal of Public Law, Vol. 42(1), pp. 89–112.

Deshmukh, S. (2024). Judicial Review and Criminal Investigation Standards Post BNSS. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, National Law Institute University (NLIU), Bhopal.

United Nations Human Rights Committee. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 14.