Question

What is meant by indirect oral investigation give its merits and demerits?

Answer 1

INDIRECT ORAL INVESTIGATION:

Under this method, the investigator collects the data indirectly by interviewing the third persons who are supposed to be in close touch with the original informants or the incidence. This method of collecting the data is adopted when the original informants are either not found or found to be reluctant to part with the desired information, or the incidence concerned is not accessible. Such type of method is usually adopted by enquiry committees is not accessible. Such type of method is usually adopted by the enquiry committees or commissions appointed by a government – Central or a State. In this type of enquiry, usually a small list of questions is prepared and the persons connected with the matter (known as witnesses) are individually invited and asked to answer to those questions. The replies given by them are recorded systematically by the investigatory.

MERITS:

Under this method, the investigator collects the data indirectly by interviewing the third persons who are supposed to be in close touch with the original informants or the incidence. This method of collecting the data is adopted when the original informants are either not found or found to be reluctant to part with the desired information, or the incidence concerned is not accessible. Such type of method is usually adopted by enquiry committees is not accessible. Such type of method is usually adopted by the enquiry committees or commissions appointed by a government – Central or a State. In this type of enquiry, usually a small list of questions is prepared and the persons connected with th4e matter (known as witnesses) are individually invited and asked to answer to those questions. The replies given by them are recorded systematically by the investigatory.

DEMERITS:

The facts obtained from the third parties may not be reliable at times.

The third parties, may at times be actuated by some motive and thus depose fabricated information.

The evidence given by the witness may be affected by their inherent psychology viz. optimism or pessimism. In this connection, the interesting example of two drunkards (One optimist and another pessimist) left with half a bottle of wine each makes the point very clear. The optimist drunkard said, “What do I care for the world, I have yet half the bottle with me.” And the pessimist drunkard said, “what can I do in this world, I have only half the bottle with me.” In this case, the statement of both the drunkards were correct but give different impressions.

A wrong and improper choice of the witness by bribery, nepotism or undue requests for which the true information obtained may be twisted by them.