Investigation and prosecution of murder cases call for dedication, perseverance, a sound knowledge of criminal law, and integrity of the highest order.
AS I write this column, the Aarushi case continues to make headlines. In spite of their best efforts, Central Bureau of Investigation sleuths still seem to be groping in the dark. At least, this is what we are led to believe, going by the further extension obtained by the CBI of the custody of Krishna, Dr. Talwars compounder.
I am struck by the enormous national interest this unfortunate happening has kindled. Is this because one of the two victims was a teenager, that too a girl? Or is it because of the adverse publicity the case received through the ham-handed approach of the Uttar Pradesh Police, which was initially in charge of the investigation? Whichever it may be, homicide investigations by the Indian police are ridden with controversy right from the word go.
In the Aarushi case, controversy came in the form of two things. First, the gross neglect of the local police in not guarding the crime scene. The place was contaminated (in the language of forensic science laboratories) because of this thoughtlessness. Next, the impolitic remarks by an Inspector General of Police that cast a slur on the deceased girls character. This was media handling at its poorest and generated a furore that quickly acquired political overtones in Delhis corridors of power.
Chief Minister Mayawati was quick to realise that the Congress party was trying to malign her police with a view to embarrassing her. This is why she sought and managed a transfer of the investigation to the CBI. I still do not know why the CBI agreed to take up the case. The case has no international or inter-State ramifications to warrant this. It may be a complicated case, but this per se did not warrant the transfer. If the yardstick applied to the Aarushi case were to prevail, the CBIs hands would be full in no time. The agency has better things to do than handle routine cases of homicide. The case, therefore, sets a bad precedent.
The volume of homicides has been rising beyond acceptable levels. The murder rate (that is, the number of offences per 100,000 of the population, a universal standard adopted by nations) may still be low at 2.9. But the sheer numbers are staggering. From a mere 9,802 in 1953 (the first year for which statistics are available), the number of murders in the country went up to 32,481 in 2006.
Consider this along with another shocker. In 2006, as many as 36,131 dead bodies remained unidentified. How many of them were victims of murder is anybodys guess as these are days when assailants can do away with their adversaries without the slightest signs of aggression. Of the 33,808 homicide victims in 2006, nearly 23 per cent were women. More than 12,000 victims of murder were in the age group of 18 to 30.
The above statistics highlight the point that police investigators have their work cut out for them. Homicides cast a heavy burden of duty that is often discharged without the professionalism demanded of the investigators. This is a thankless, high-pressure task that often exposes officers to the needless glare of the public eye. Only a few enjoy the media attention that goes with it. In the process, even those who do so bungle so badly that they soon become objects of wrath and ridicule.
The corruption that accompanies an investigation is a matter of shame. The damage done to a case at the instance of an influential accused not necessarily one with political clout who has bags of money commences with the drawing up of a faulty first information report (FIR), one that either carries vague details or too much information, which can lead to the court drawing the wrong inferences.
Courts rely a lot on the FIR because it is a document prepared at the first point of time when, generally speaking, fewer forces are at play to demolish a case. The problem is that an FIR may bear the date and time of a crime, but it is seldom finalised immediately. It is several days before its contents take a final shape. Court staff, who are supposed to receive a copy of the FIR as soon as it is registered, often overlook the gross irregularity of a wanton delay in registering the FIR. This is an age-old evil that permits tinkering with the accuracy of the details of a murder. This adversely affects the outcome of a trial unless the case lands on appeal in the hands of a pragmatic judge who is willing to overcome the infirmities in the FIR on the basis of solid, credible evidence that is otherwise available.
The search for the weapon used to commit a murder becomes a long-drawn-out process in the absence of a confession by the accused or other credible evidence. In the Aarushi case, the weapon is yet to be recovered. This is a serious matter because the prosecution will have to produce the exact weapon used by the accused and this should match the injuries sustained by the deceased. Expert medical opinion will have to be obtained to establish that the injuries on the body of the deceased could in all probability only have been inflicted by the recovered weapon.
Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, a confession made to a police officer by an accused becomes admissible in evidence only when it directly leads to the recovery of a material fact relevant to the investigation. This is why recovery of the weapon is the paramount task of the investigating officer. Not many measure up to this exacting task.
The importance of a thorough examination of an accused or a suspect cannot be exaggerated. Many investi- gative officers do not appreciate the fact that use of the third degree is counterproductive and that skilful oral examination can produce reliable evidence that the court may be willing to consider. The utility of a lie detector test and narcoanalysis (whose legality is still in doubt) remains uncertain. They are at best rough indicators of guilt or at least of a possible role in the crime under investigation. This is why examination of eyewitnesses or those who are somehow connected with the occurrenc becomes crucial.
Investigative officers cannot obtain a signed statement from witnesses. Unsigned statements alone are admissible in law because otherwise the tendency would be to extract written statements that prove the guilt of the accused or otherwise favour the prosecution. A lot depends on questioning an accused or a suspect without violating legally established procedures. This is where many investigative officers fail because they do not have the perseverance required. Questioning of witnesses is an art that requires enormous patience and involves long hours of work, which many officers are unwilling to put in. All police agencies, therefore, find it hard to draw skilled and experienced officers into their ranks. The incentives offered are few, and even these are not sufficiently attractive in terms of monetary compensation. In spite of these adverse factors, if a case or two gets solved, it is due to the sheer dedication of a handful of officers.
Legal assistance to investigative officers during an investigation is invariably poor or just modest. It is the experience of countries the world over that governments can hardly pay for the best of brains in the field. As a result, many investigations flounder in court. There are either far too many inconsistencies in the prosecutions story or downright illegalities in procedure, which a clever defence lawyer can capitalise on. While talented and experienced special public prosecutors are appointed by some police agencies to conduct trials, even they cannot match the battery of lawyers that an influential accused can produce on his own behalf. Eventually, it is an unequal battle in court, where a strong defence team is able to pick so many holes in a prosecutions story that even the most pro-prosecution of judges can hardly ignore them.
The ease with which an accused is able to buy or intimidate witnesses is another tragedy of the Indian scene, which makes a mockery of our whole criminal justice system. The strong intervention of the Supreme Court has only slightly improved the situation. Many politically influential accused, who are clearly guilty of murders, have got off scot-free, which raises the inescapable question, How just and effective is our criminal justice system?
In the final analysis, investigation and prosecution of murder cases call for high dedication and perseverance, a sound knowledge of criminal law and, above all, integrity of the highest order. If these are present in the investigating team, it can more than make up for the deficiencies in a prosecution version that is based on truth but is poorly presented. It is here that training institutions can play an important role. There is a case for the strengthening of special courses on homicide investigation so that all requisite skills are imparted. As for integrity, experience tells us this cannot be artificially generated. It depends almost wholly on individual perceptions of service to the community. Nothing else can work in an ambience like ours, which is vitiated by venality and crass political considerations.
COMMents
COMMents
SHARE