There have been three high-profile cases in the past few days in which the Judiciary has acquitted the accused because of what can be described as ‘shoddy investigation’ and poor-quality prosecution – the Mumbai train blasts in 2006; the Malegaon blast in 2008; and the Nithari killings, again in 2006. The judgements came almost two decades after the crimes took place, which is indicative of the state of affairs in the system.
Going by what the courts have said in their judgements, it can be said that investigative practices at the time of these incidents were not exactly ‘scientific’ and were based on what passed muster in that period and before. With better quality forensics having made its way into the overall system, rough and ready work done in the chowkis and thanas no longer stands as the truth. Accused persons getting away because the prosecution could not do a good enough job is not the same as proof of innocence. Unfortunately for the victims of the crimes, this is justice denied because whoever did it managed to get away.
It is to be hoped that the system will learn its lesson from such fiascos, which occur almost daily. In many of the countries where there is better enforcement of the law, due importance is given to the prosecuting authorities. The district attorney’s office in the US, for instance, only takes matters to court when it is fully satisfied with the police investigation. Any shortcomings are identified and rectified. It has complete authority to do so. Do government prosecutors have the same authority in India? They do not have a supervisory role over the investigation to ensure it meets legal requirements and make do with what is provided to them. Their position in the pecking order is also nowhere near that of the police officials.
One can also question why the Judiciary does not throw out the cases when the shortcomings are so obvious. Why does it take many years and several judges to come to a conclusion about facts that can be determined in the course of a couple of sittings? Is this not because of inbuilt procedural hurdles and lack of application of mind? In cases where the accused are truly innocent, their suffering can only be imagined because the process becomes the punishment. Sadly, the system mostly benefits the influential guilty, who can stay out of jail for years on end because of these institutional infirmities. That is also one major reason why the necessary reforms have not taken place.
