Conviction rate is falling off due to the perfunctory investigation and it does not satisfy the judicial conscious of this court: Madras HC

(Judicial Quest News Network)

Madras High Court while delivering its judgment in a Murder case has strongly raised concern about the police encounters and majority of people are now opting for other modes of redresses, Like Kangaroo Courts, etc.

The Shabby and perfunctory investigation in a murder case that ultimately allowed the madras High Court to set free the accused on Tuesday has brought to the fore concerns regarding the quality of police investigations. The Court has said that “We cannot allow this reputation of the agency to be eroded by some irresponsible officers. It appears that the quality of the investigation in the State is considerably decreasing. The data available under the Crime Records Bureau for the years 2016 to 2018 disclose”

Mentioning the year-wise conviction and acquittal rates obtained from National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the judge has raised the concern over the rapidly declining quality of investigation in Tamilnadu.

“The conviction rate is slowly declining, while the combined acquittal and discharge rate is on the rise. Therefore, it appears that the quality of investigation is perfunctory not only in this case, but in almost 50 % of

The cases “the Court observed.

 This is the reason that a large number of people are now supporting extra-judicial processes such as police encounters.

The investigation officers are warned against prematurely committing themselves to any view of the facts for, or against a person. It is reiterated that in order to find out the truth, they should preserve an open mind throughout the inquiry. But, in this case, it prima facie appears that for favouring the real culprits, the appellant / accused has been made as Aunt Sally and the investigation proceeded in that direction.

The Court has critically said that “Why should wrongfully convicted person not be given Rs. 10Lakhs as Compensation?

The judge observed that the police officer seemed to have acted only to bury the truth.

This kind of casual, perfunctory, careless and biased manner in which the investigation carried out and handled by police led to the judge to set aside the conviction of the accused.

The further said that“It is not known whether any mechanism is available to conduct the investigation or to start the investigation and to deal with the same in a particular manner, for each type of cases.

We are witnessing every day that in a case of theft, though fingerprints were available, they are not taken. Even if they are taken, they are not compared with the fingerprints of the accused. In murder cases, crucial call details were not collected, through the service providers and even if collected, they were not marked before the Court”.

Notably regadin the Law and Order and Criminal investigation the Court has rendered following suggestions

Law and Order and Criminal Investigation wings – separation. –

(1) In every Police Station, except those specifically designated as Crime Police Stations, there shall be a Law and Order Wing and an Investigation Wing, both working under the control of the Station House Officer, who shall ensure coordination between the two wings.

(2) The Investigation Wing shall be responsible for investigation and prosecution of all cases registered in the station, including cases detected by the Law and Order Wing.

(3) The Police Officers of the Investigation Wing may be called Detective Constables, Detective Head Constables and Detective Sub-Inspectors. They

Shall not be diverted to any band bust work except with the prior approval of the Zonal Inspector General of Police or Commissioner of Police.

(4) The Investigation Wing shall be provided with adequate staff to cope with the work load. The Board shall lay down norms for staff strength

Taking into account the volume of cases.

(5) Every Police Station shall have a Missing Person Liaison Officer in the rank of a Detective Sub-Inspector to co-ordinate and follow up the

Cases of missing persons.

(6) Within the Investigation Wing of each Police Station, at least one officer with aptitude and appropriate training and orientation shall be

Designated as the ‘Juvenile or Child Welfare Officer’ as required under sub-section (2) of section 63 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (Central Act 56 of 2000). This Officer will handle juveniles or children in co-ordination with other Police Officers.

These officers together will be members of the Special Juvenile Police Unit of the District or City to co-ordinate and to upgrade the Police treatment of juveniles and children.”

In view of these concerns the court proceeded to implead the Director General of Police, The Home Prohibition and Excise department and the Police training College at Chennai as respondents to the case. Further the investigation officer involved in the case was also impleaded in their personal capacity.

 The matter has been listed to be taken up next on September22.

Advocate Mohiuddin Basha appeared for appellant in the matter. Government Advocate A Robinson appeared for the State.

[Read the Judgement]