Fayaz Bukhari
Srinagar, Dec 29: Expressing concern over the faulty police investigations, the State High Court today directed the Government to create and sanction at least 200 posts of officers in Police for investigations so that criminals may not go scot free.
The direction was passed for effective investigations to be conducted by these officers who will be specially trained in using scientific devices and won’t allow criminals to be declared innocent before the court of law due to the failure of prosecution. Court directed that these police officers of the rank of Sub-Inspectors should have qualification of Science (Biology and Chemistry) and three years Degree in Law.
Justice Hasnain Masoodi, while dealing with a petition wherein acquittal order of a criminal was challenged by the rape victim’s mother, directed: “Once the proposal is so moved, let it be considered without allowing it to fall a prey to procedural wrangles and approved within two weeks thereafter. On creation/sanction of the posts let the recruitment process be initiated and completed within four weeks.”
Court directed the Director General of Police to move a proposal for creation of these posts of Sub Inspectors in the grade otherwise available to the cadre before the Government within a period of two weeks from the date of receiving the copy of this order.
“Once the proposal is so moved, let it be considered without allowing it to fall a prey to procedural wrangles and approved within two weeks thereafter”, court said adding: “On creation/sanction of the posts let the recruitment process be initiated and completed within four weeks”.
Court further directed that these selectees on their appointments as Investigating Sub Inspectors shall be posted at least one in each of the Police Stations of the State and two or more in the Police Stations of Srinagar and Jammu cities and Police Stations of major towns/district headquarters of the State.
“Needless to State that on their selection/ appointment, steps shall be taken to organize comprehensive training program in Forensic Tools to be used in investigation, in addition to the routine training”, court said and sought compliance of these directions from DGP by February 16 next year.
Court, on failure of prosecution to use and integrate modern techniques with the investigations, observed it results in wastage of precious time resources, at all levels – be it investigation or trial and proceedings emanating there from. The failure also compounds agony of an innocent person dragged to the Trial Court on false charges and at times made to face incarceration, finally acquitted by Trial Court or the Appellate Court as the case may be.
Court was hearing a criminal revision petition wherein order of acquittal passed by District Judge Ganderbal was challenged and court set-aside the acquittal order and remanded the case to trial court for fresh trial.
Court while cancelling the bail bonds of accused directed him to surrender immediately before the trial court with the condition that in case accused fails or avoid to surrender that process be issued against him by the trial judge for securing his presence before the court.
“Once respondent surrenders or is brought before the Trial Court in execution of the process issued, Trial Court shall pass order under Section 344 CrPC as regards remand and custody”, reads the order.
Court rapped the investigating agency (Police) for their lackadaisical in investigating the matter in its right perspective which resulted in the acquittal of the accused who was involved in such a heinous crime (Rape).
“Before parting with the judgment, it is necessary to point to failure of the investigating officer to employ modern and scientific techniques, now available, to dig out and unravel true facts and ensure that the effort made while investigating the matter and thereafter prosecuting it before the trial Court does not go waste”, court observed.
Court further said that the object of criminal justice system is to punish a person guilty of an offence so that sentence awarded on his conviction by Trial Court works as deterrent against other potential offenders and also to reform the person convicted so that he is reclaimed by the society.
“It is, therefore, necessary that investigating officer, acting as first Judge of the case, undertakes impartial, dispassionate but serious exercise, employing all the techniques available under law, to lay bare true facts before the Trial Court and also indicate with sufficient clarity the evidence by which he proposes to prove the results of investigation”, reads the order.
In the present case, the victim complained that she was allegedly ravished by the respondent and left pregnant. She was carrying pregnancy at the time occurrence surfaced and was reported to Police Station, Ganderbal, leading to registration of case FIR no.169/2012 under Section 376 RPC. She tragically passed away about two months after the case was registered.
“The investigating officer could have with least difficulty, with the assistance of the doctor, who treated the victim at local hospital or attended her at Lal Ded Hospital, obtained sample/tissue from the foetus for DNA profiling/matching with the sample taken from the respondent. Such a course would have helped the Investigating Officer to produce more convincing evidence before the trial Court regarding the result of investigation and also the trial Court to arrive at just conclusion”, court said
The investigating officer, court said, has very conveniently ignored this aspect of the case, possibly because he had either no idea about the technique available or did not have will to use the technique and instead proceeded with the investigation in a lifeless and routine manner. What is true about the present case is equally true about the more than 90 percent of the criminal cases that end in acquittal of the accused because of faulty investigation or casual and half-hearted prosecution.
Court expressed its dis-satisfaction over the trial conducted and thereafter decision passed by the Trial Judge and said he (Trial Judge) has conveniently avoided to look into all above aspects of the case and found an escape route by ignoring statement of deceased recorded under Section 164-A CrPC.
“Learned Trial Judge opined that as victim died before her statement was recorded and prosecution case rested on statement of victim, charge against respondent was not proved and respondent deserved to be acquitted and charge-sheet dismissed”, reads the order.
Trial Judge did not put incriminatory material come across in statement of mother of deceased. “Mother of the victim stated before Trial Court that a few months after occurrence when her daughter (deceased) complained of pain in abdomen, she took her to local doctor and doctor on examining her daughter informed her that her daughter carried pregnancy of 6 months and that when she enquired from deceased, her daughter (deceased) told her that accused had committed rape on her and left her pregnant.
Mother of the victim added that statement of her daughter was recorded under Section 164 CrPC before Magistrate. Details of occurrence narrated by deceased to her mother were relevant in terms of Section 6, Evdience Act, to prove alleged occurrence and therefore, open to proof. The mother of the victim had, therefore, by her testimony proved that deceased identified respondent as person, who had committed rape on her.
Similarly, the mother of victim, having deposed that statement of deceased under Section 164-A CrPC was recorded before Magistrate (CJM) and Imtiyaz Ahmad, Investigating Officer, having claimed to have got statement of deceased recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C.
Court to this aspect of the matter mentioned that Trial Judge was duty bound to put statements made in this regard to respondent and also to summon Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganderbal (Parvaiz Husain Kachroo), so that statement of deceased was proved, the witness was allowed to be cross-examined by respondent and thereafter statement of witness on its proof put to respondent.
“Learned Trial Judge, unmindful of gravity of charge against respondent, appears to have dealt with matter in casual, slipshod and routine manner, and rushed to acquit respondent without dealing with aforementioned aspects of case. It is well settled law that Trial Judge is not to act as a mere spectator or neutral empire in criminal trial”, court said.
About the Trial Court Judgement said that in such a heinous crime, Judge should not get involved in the proceedings and ensure that all important evidence on either side is brought on record and dealt with in accordance with law. While Trial Court Judge is not required to willy-nilly convict accused, no matter what evidence is brought on record, traverse distance between suspicion to proof, only because offence alleged against accused is grave and serious. Trial Judge is also not expected to assume role of neutral empire, allow material evidence to be ignored and not brought on record by either-side and rush to acquit accused.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel