Acquittals in criminal cases are due to several factors and most crucial among them is the manner in which the investigation is carried out by the police
In any criminal trial, the term convicted or acquitted is ultimate as the fate of the victim as well as the alleged accused is dependent on these two words which are of great significance. Conviction in criminal cases is very hard-fought-for as criminal jurisprudence is governed by the principle that a hundred guilty may go unpunished but one innocent person shall not be punished.
Acquittals in criminal cases are due to several factors and most crucial among them is the manner in which the investigation is carried out by the police. The police officers enjoy unfettered powers in the process of investigation and the same is bestowed only with the intent that the investigation doesn’t fall short of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The Investigating Officer is the captain of the ship during the course of the investigation and is solely responsible for filing a solid chargesheet. The IO in the process of investigation can take all possible steps to collect evidence, including arresting and subjecting the accused to custodial interrogation. He or she is also responsible for other aspects such as attachment and recovery of weapons or vehicles used in the commission of a crime. Another important part of the investigation is recording statements of eyewitnesses and other witnesses, securing documents such as the medical certificates of the victims and /or autopsy reports in case of death of the victim and/or any other document etc.
The investigating officer is largely responsible for the final outcome of the criminal case investigated by him/her as any lapse in investigation benefits the accused who can take advantage of the lapses committed by the investigating officer to destroy the case of the prosecution. There are unintentional lapses in investigation perhaps due to lack of efficiency, knowledge, commitment or experience of the investigating officer. However, in most of the cases the lapses are deliberate as they lack in integrity and honesty. Most of the police officers investigating serious and heinous offences are very well aware of the intricacies of criminal law and in many cases being managed by the accused and /or for being influenced by politicians intentionally carry out shoddy investigation by leaving loopholes for the accused to take advantage and to facilitate acquittals of the accused. The misdemeanor of the investigating officer in an investigation can be easily identified during a trial. May a time, IOs for one reason or the other intentionally commit acts that are prejudicial to the investigation. The trials many a time expose improper procedure of arrest of the accused, non-recovery of weapons used in the commission of the offence, securing panch witnesses who are of the choice of the accused and which witnesses will turn hostile and deny the contents of the panchanama etc.
Panchanama though is merely a record of what the panch sees and can be used as a record to refresh the memory of the panch witness when he/she steps in to the witness box and swears to what is seen. However, to prove an offence, the panchanama and the testimony of the panch witness is as important as any other evidence in a criminal trial.
Evidence of eyewitnesses is very crucial to prove the guilt of the accused and criminal offences can be proved after trial in the courts either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. Eyewitnesses are those persons who have personally seen the incident /offence and can give a first-hand description of it in the court during trial. Direct evidence means examination of eyewitness in support of the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Whereas in many cases when there are no eyewitnesses, the guilt of the accused is to be proved by circumstantial evidence only and which should be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. Circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused.
To prove offences by circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove all the circumstances connecting the unbroken chain of links leading to only one inference that the accused has committed the crime. If any other reasonable hypothesis of the innocence of the accused can be inferred from the proved circumstances then the accused would be entitled to acquittal and hence proving the guilt of the accused by circumstantial evidence is very difficult. The last seen theory is a theory to prove a case on the basis of circumstantial evidence wherein the victim and the accused are seen together and after an interval of time the accused is found alive and the victim dead.
For the accused to be convicted, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused as there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. To make things further difficult for the prosecution, there is a golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases wherein if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case, one pointing to the guilt and the other to the innocence of the accused, the view which is favourable to the accused should be and is adopted and therefore many cases result in acquittal than in conviction of the accused.
The role and responsibility of the Public Prosecutors conducting a trial on behalf of the state are very crucial as the expected attitude of the PPs while conducting prosecution must be couched in fairness not only to the court and to the investigating agencies but to the accused as well. If an accused is entitled to any legitimate benefit during a trial then the public prosecutors should not scuttle it but on the contrary should winch it to the fore and make it available to the accused even if the defence counsel has overlooked it and that is the reason why in heinous and serious offences a private counsel is not allowed free hand to conduct the prosecution. The blame of acquittal should be cast on the investigating officer largely in most of the criminal cases and the public prosecutors should not be blamed. At least in the state of Goa, we are blessed to have very efficient and competent public prosecutors who only fall short most of the times due to the errors committed in investigation by the investigating officers and therefore it is for the lawmakers to answer the question whether acquittals in criminal cases are boon or a curse to the society?
(The writer is a practicing criminal lawyer from Mapusa)
