What now happens to API Sachin Waze’s other cases?

Can evidence collected by an officer himself accused of a crime be trusted The arrest of Assistant Police Inspector API Sachin Waze by the NIA in the alleged case of the explosivesladen Scorpio and the observation of the additional sessions judge while rejecting his anticipatory bail may have an impact on cases he has probed Legal experts said that evidence collected by him may get challenged during the trial of casesSuspended Mumbai police officer Sachin Waze centre File picShailendra Tambe additional sessions judge Thane who had heard Wazersquos anticipatory bail application observed in his order ldquoThe informant Vimla Hiran directly made allegations against the applicant Waze in her FIR with name Hence this court came to the conclusion that the investigation is at initial stage by the ATS The offence is under section 201 of IPC causing disappearance of evidence ie dead body of Mansukh Hiran and section 120 B Criminal Conspiracy The offence under section 302 murder is a serious offence The accused is unknown hence there is criminal conspiracy and thorough investigation is necessary by ATSrdquo The court had also said that there is prima facie evidence and material against WazeSenior criminal lawyer Dinesh Tiwari said ldquoWhile there are no legal provisions there are judgemental laws that say if an Investigating Officer IO is not trustworthy in cases where evidence is laid then the fact of his untrustworthiness can be kept in mind while deciding the case Wazersquos background is likely to have a negative impact on the evidencerdquoldquoSection 53 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the evidence of the accused and not that of the IO In all cases probed by the IO the accused will get benefited to a certain extent The court would keep in mind that the tainted IO is quite capable of planting evidence And evidence may be examined keeping such a possibility in mindrdquo advocate Tiwari addedlsquoIO must be fairrsquoCriminal lawyer Swapnil Ambure said ldquoThe apex court has often held that fair investigation is a part of constitutional rights The IO must be fair to rule out the possibility of fabrication of evidence Since there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code dealing with irregularities committed by IOs the courtrsquos say comes into play As a general principle error illegality or defect in probes canrsquot have an impact unless miscarriage of justice is brought about or serious prejudice is caused to the accusedrdquoldquoThe integrity and character of the witness do play a role and the IO deposes in court as a witness With the IO having a history of notoriety or allegations of fabricating evidence the benefit can be given to the accused Claims of false implication would have to be proven by the accusedrdquo said AmbureAdvocate Rajeshwar Panchal who practises criminal law said ldquoThe apex court has held that fair trial and probe are a part of constitutional rights While there would be reason for the accused to raise agrievance against the evidence submitted by a tainted IO one cannot jump to conclusions right away because the allegations against Waze need to be proved firstrdquoCriminal lawyer Junaid S Shabwany said ldquoAn IO is dutybound to conduct an impartial probe There is a possibility of the court discrediting his probes if his own reputation is tarnished Where witnesses have been examined and crossexamined the court would not ordinarily recall them because of a case against the IOrdquolsquoCourt decides on evidencersquoAdvocate Rohini Salian former chief public prosecutor said ldquoAn IO is bound to be crossexamined by defence lawyers during the trial In my four decades of practice never was a police officer with a tainted past who resigned from the department reinstated for reasons unknownrdquoldquoIt would be unfair to remark on the IOrsquos cases until they come up for hearing Also the defence may attempt to derail the prosecutionrsquos case probed by the said IO based on the allegations and the arrest However only the trial court can decide on the quality of the evidence and the depositions of the witnesses after listening to both sidesrdquo added SalianSolicitor speakSolicitor Stuti Galiya said ldquoThere may not be any actual bias but reasonable suspicion or only the likelihood of bias can provide an advantage to the defence to question the probe Acceptance of such claims would depend on the facts and circumstances of each caserdquo