Upon the circulation of CCTV footage capturing the brutal assault on activist Rama Kankonkar in Caranzalem, shortly after he exited a restaurant, public discourse has increasingly focused on a single aspect: whether the victim’s statement has been recorded. Both media coverage and non-legal commentary have emphasised this point, treating it almost as a precondition for the investigation to progress into a more material and relevant stage. Such a fixation, however, reflects a misinterpretation of criminal procedure.
Commencement of investigation under BNSS
An investigation under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 may be commenced the moment a designated police officer receives information of a cognisable offence committed within the jurisdiction of the concerned police station. The officer is then empowered to initiate a First Information Report on the basis of that information. This procedural step permits the investigation to begin without delay, even in the absence of a victim’s statement. In such circumstances, the police officer effectively steps into the role of the informant, and the machinery of investigation is set into motion by law.
Informant’s duty under Criminal Procedure
For the purpose of comparison with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is useful to recall judicial interpretation of the role of an informant at the stage of reporting a crime.
In Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi), 2020 SCC OnLine SC 700, the Supreme Court, speaking through a Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, examined the ambit of Section 157 of the CrPC, 1973. The Court emphasised that once information suggestive of the commission of a cognisable offence comes to the notice of the officer in charge of a police station—whether through secret sources, a hospital intimation, a telephonic message, or even personal observation—it becomes the officer’s duty to reduce such information into writing and commence investigation. The judgment illustrated this principle with examples, noting that if an officer discovers a dead body or witnesses an assault in progress, he is not debarred from proceeding merely because no formal written complaint has been lodged. The obligation to investigate arises from the suspicion of a cognisable offence itself, and the procedural step of converting such information into a First Information Report ensures that the investigative process lawfully begins. This principle, which underpinned the CrPC, retains equal relevance under the BNSS, demonstrating that the absence of a victim’s statement does not stall the initiation of a lawful investigation.
Progress of investigation beyond the victim
What emerges clearly, therefore, is that the investigation has already commenced. Media reports themselves indicate that arrests have been effected, which affirms that the investigating officer is actively discharging statutory duties. The process now encompasses the examination of witnesses, the recording of statements from the accused, the recovery of material evidence such as the weapons used, the determination of motive, and the unravelling of the conspiracy that culminated in the commission of the offence. Each of these steps, recognised both under the BNSS, 2023 and the earlier CrPC, 1973, is independent of the victim’s participation. The victim’s role, while important, is not the fulcrum upon which the investigation rests; the statutory framework obliges the police to build the case upon material, corroborative, and forensic evidence in addition to any statement that may eventually be recorded.
Transfer of investigation to CBI
In circumstances where the investigation begins to display signs of fragility from the perspective of integrity, prudence dictates that remedial measures be considered without delay. One such measure would be for the State of Goa, acting through its Home Department, to recommend the transfer of the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation in New Delhi. Such a course of action would serve to insulate the inquiry from local pressures and to reinforce public confidence in its impartiality.
Medico-legal dimension and electronic evidence
From the medico-legal standpoint, humanistic consideration must be kept in view. A victim who has endured a brutal assault inevitably suffers psychological and emotional trauma, compounded by the gravity of a threat to life. Without a thorough psychological evaluation, any statement recorded from such a victim is vulnerable to challenge by defence counsel when the charge sheet is eventually presented before the Sessions Court in North Goa, which has territorial jurisdiction over the matter. For this reason, the investigation ought to place greater emphasis upon electronic evidence, particularly the preservation and analysis of CCTV footage of the incident. Such material is capable of providing an objective account of the assault, enabling identification of the assailants, establishing the number of blows inflicted, and even assessing the force used by each participant. This evidence, unlike a traumatised statement, directly illuminates the mens rea involved in the attempt on the victim’s life and becomes the strongest indicator of culpability.
Governmental inaction and systemic threat
The multiple facets of governmental inaction that have surfaced in this matter must be recognised as a direct threat to the credibility of the State’s criminal justice system. The inability to provide timely and consistent justice to a victim of such a grave assault reflects systemic weaknesses rather than isolated lapses. No measure of prosecutorial zeal can compensate for the absence of coordination between agencies, particularly the evident tardiness of the police in identifying and securing the principal conspirators even at this advanced stage of the investigation.
