Recently I happened to meet one of my former colleagues, a police officer. He was looking haggard and crest-fallen. I was wondering what happened to his effervescent spirit, as I knew him to possess.
He was not forthcoming immediately, probably because we were not in touch for long. However, on being coaxed, he came out with the reason. The matter was commonplace in the police service. He was pulled up by his seniors for two of his cases having ended in acquittal. I know my friend’s approach to his work to be always above reproach. I could easily connect with his problem owing to my own experience in this field.
One can understand the public’s criticism of the efficacy of the police when a high-profile case collapses in a court of law and the media making mincemeat of them. However, it is incomprehensible that even experienced senior police (supervisory) officers tend to shift the blame to the investigating officers whenever there is a failure. ‘Blame it on the IO’ is the usual refrain of these seniors, and sending the IO to the chopping block is the usual denouement, whenever a case fails in court. It is conveniently forgotten that investigation is nothing but collection of evidence for and against the accused and the conviction or acquittal of the accused by a court of law happens after a trial, which is nothing but appreciation of evidence collected by the IO.
But what the public does not usually know is that though investigation and trial are connected legal processes, they operate in different spheres. More than the role of an Investigating Officer, that of a Prosecutor in a criminal trial is the crucial factor that enables a Presiding Officer to decide the case. After the trial court’s verdict, the appeal process is also a continuation of the same legal proceedings, and don’t we come across higher courts overturning the verdicts
of lower courts? Does it mean the lower courts have failed in their duty of deciding cases on merit? It is again incomprehensible why even the supervisory officers who know that an officer investigating a cognizable offence is duty-bound to send up the accused for trial if there is prima facie evidence to prosecute him, still bay for the blood of the IO when a case fails in court. What is this oft-repeated ‘prima facie evidence’, which many pretend to know but actually do not know? To put it simply, prima facie evidence is that evidence which would lead to proving the guilt of the person, if not put to test by the accused. And every trial commences with the presumption that the accused is innocent until his/her guilt is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
What needs to be understood here is that trial is commenced on the fulcrum of untested evidence, which is put to test only during trial. To secure a conviction the quality of evidence adduced during trial should be such that it should prove the guilt by piercing through the barriers of all reasonable doubts in the minds of the court. The snail’s pace at which the wheel of the judicial system in our country moves, the archaic way of attaching more importance to oral evidence, ignorance and prevarication of witnesses, adjournment-hungry counsel and the adjournment-generous judges sap whatever strength would be left in the prima facie evidence which an IO has collected assiduously during investigation. But still, blame only the IO if the case fails. To be precise, in a criminal case the role of an IO, no doubt, is like the hub of a wheel but it alone cannot keep the wheel of justice moving to take it to its destination. This said, my one-off experience in a court in Karnataka some time back has, however, taught me that there is a glimmer of hope for folks like my friend. After having been grilled for a whole session in a case I had investigated at least two decades ago, the defence counsel, as a parting gift, shot a suggestion at me that I had conducted a slipshod investigation and falsely implicated his client. Even before my lips began to move, the judge, a seasoned player, ordered that I should not answer the question and curtly asked my adversary to take back the question. When the crafty counsel tried to explain his position, the judge earnestly advised him that he could not allow one professional to undermine another.
Again, when the impervious counsel tried to justify his question, the judge put to him this: “Sir, if you answer my question honestly, I shall allow your question.” Then the Judge smilingly asked counsel, “Have you won all the cases that you defended before me?” Came the reply palpably tinged with some embarrassment, ‘No, Your Honour, I can’t say affirmatively. In fact, Your Honour did convict some of my clients’.
Now came the repartee from the judge, “If that is the case, can I take it that you did not conduct your cases properly or as you have just put it to this witness, that your slipshod advocacy resulted in conviction of your clients?”
Counsel retreated honourably. Then the judge eloquently addressed all those present there: “Success or failure of a case in a court of law depends on so many factors, and nobody can either steal the credit for the success or pass the buck to someone else for its failure”.
Is anybody listening?
ganprabha1961@gmail.com
