Jatinder Singh v. State Of Haryana
!"
# $%&%!'( )** %'# + ,%'-.
*** % %!' + /&* ,
!"
+0
*** &1!'# '
( 23 * , ,
!
"
####### ,
4 * 3
$ %
&'(
"
)
(*(+ , - )./
"
) (+* (3 $$ (*(&
+*+
"
)"
"
(*(+ , - )./ ,
/
4
( 6 *7 *& (*(3
"
9
!
" "
#$
%
%&
% '" (
! ) !
* %
%
%
+ , -
$ $ ! +
. " !
! + , -
/ % $
%
0+ !
" ' 1$ 1
2'" '
!!
0 )'' %!
0-34+ 56+ 7 %
!
! ' ! " ! ) 8 #$
%
%& "
"
!
% ! " $
$ 9
#
!
0 "$ :
"
%
#$
%
% & " 6
. " !
)
.#- ! %!
#$ !
"0
4 "2 %
$
$ '
% $
' %
$
%
)' #$
%
% & % %') $
%
; "7!
% $
)'
<=) ! 0
!
"# $%& '(
''
) ! * +' ,- ./
!
0 - %$
1 ! 23 4
55
5
-$$" !
!! ) #$
%
%&
! 7 '
" )' #$
%
%& # $
" !
)
! ' )
% ) > ' )
#$
%
%>*
% & 8 !
!
$
%
>*
% & ) )'
! $
:5
:5 0 0
4 "6
# *
%& !
!
/ $
%
" !! ) #9 ;%
"
*
%&
/ !
$
%
0
%) $ )$ )
(!
!
)'
0
0
"
'
?
+ :
" 5
% 5 "
5"
; < 5%
"
5 5%
"
=
5 9
5 5 9
6 9 5"
< < "
"
"
82>9 +$'?9(*(3 "
) +
%"
1
%
= %
5@
1 6
5
5
%
"
=
% 5
=
5%
%5 % 9 4 5
%
A5
, ! / %
*7 "
+3,+/
) B
:+ * 00
4 "6 @0 =C %
"
& 1 5 *7 *& (*(3
"
1 855
% "
"
% : 5 1
6 %5
= !
!
5 % 1
&*( % "
= 1
= 5
%"
=
%
A 5 5 55 5
%
5
%
5"
%
(*,+/ 8 1
"
95
)7* ) ) !) 8 ) ! !!) ! ' ) ! )
%
?
?
8
!.% 5 ! '9
"
/
6 ,. 5 -- (*,+/ 8
A 8 )
A ' ) 9 $ A
% $ A 7 %
")
% (!
% $ % )
!
!
! %
!
% (!
%! )')' ! ! !
A.
%$ A
$)
!
0
7
! + % '
' $ ! ! B +
C%
)/ + ' $ ! )
'
$ $
%
) % %
/
8 7 %
!
!
)' ! $ ' )
'
! $
%
#
' ! ! %
) % !
" %
%
! ) % /
D
C$ )
)' (
% " '"
'E$
)'
E $ 3 $ '
%
.0
F " ! )
*
$ '
'% $)'! )
' $ ) % $ '
%%
8 ' $ ' $
!
' $ #
$'
%
! 7%
% %%
" ') !)' 0 !
! $
6 C$ * " "
"! $ ! ')
!
!
!
)
)' !
E
" )
+(
& " )
+(
$'
%
! 7%)'
% $
0
)'
)
# !
E ) $
F "
6 C$ * ) %
F
F
'+ 1' ) $ ! ) ) !7 )
'9 )) !7 )
) 89
! '
( 1 !
! ) ) 9
) ) ) ! ) )
) 1
)
9 1
9 !
) 89/'
) ) 9 ! )) '
( 1
?,5
/ $*
8
!.% 5 8 ! (/%.$
4
41
:5
!;9/$055
% "
% "
5 While there is no bar in directing the accused to give any physical evidence such as his fingerprints, blood sample, signatures specimen etc., he cannot be expected to make selfinculpatory statements as that would amount to testimonial compulsion. 11.
It appears that under the garb of non-cooperation during investigation, the investigating agency is compelling the petitioner to make self-incriminating statements. It is the duty of the Investigating Officer to conduct a fair, impartial, and thorough investigation by gathering all relevant evidence, both oral and documentary, to establish the truth of the matter. Relying solely on self-incriminating statements made by the accused is not only legally unsound but also contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair trial. It is the responsibility of the investigating officer to actively seek
7 out such corroborative material and build a case based on objective findings rather than mere admissions, which may be influenced by coercion, fear, or misunderstanding. Opposing the release of an accused on bail solely because he refuses to testify against himself is a draconian practice that, in good conscience, cannot be allowed to continue unchecked by this Court. $(
<
5
A5
, ! /
*7 "
5
"
5 $+ "
*7 *& (*(3
"
%"
%
% 5
&'(,(/
) ,
:50 / $& 5
,/
" ,
*7 *3 (*(3
$
>
; F;) > %
F;)