Poor knowledge of electronic and forensic techniques is affecting cops from conducting quality probe which is also impacting conviction rate, a Delhi court has said while asking the Police Commissioner to take steps to impart such training to his juniors.
The court said cases of mobile, computer and laptop theft are increasing and to improve the quality of investigation, the officers in top positions, constables and new recruits who are dealing with such matters are required to be imparted at least basic technical training.
“With increase in the incidents of mobile/laptop theft and snatching where unknown offenders commit the crime and witnesses are not able to identify the offenders, electronic evidence is very crucial to trace the offender. Lack of knowledge about mobile/computer forensic not only scuttle the investigation but adversely affects the administration of justice, as offenders remains out of reach of police,” Metropolitan Magistrate Abhilash Malhotra said.
“Accordingly, Commissioner of Delhi Police is requested to look into the serious problem and take appropriate steps for training police officials especially at the level of head constables and constables, so that quality of probe can be improved and offenders can be brought to book,” it said.
The court had earlier asked Joint Commissioner of Police to apprise it on statistics of constables and head constables posted in North Delhi District and training provided to them in these fields.
Referring to the Joint CP’s report, the court said it was clear that over 2300 head constables and constables are posted in North Delhi District and only 107 of them have been imparted basic computer training.
“From the report it is clear that no orientation is given to these constables and head constables in the area of mobile phone/ computer forensic and basic forensic techniques. Due to lack of knowledge in these areas, Investigating Officers in lower rung of ladder are unable to do quality investigation which in turn is impacting conviction rate also,” it said.
The magistrate said that in many cases there were lapses like keeping the crime scene intact and failure to control public persons who gather around the crime scene which may also disturb the forensic evidence.
It becomes difficult for a forensic expert to distinguish between the prints/traces of policemen or public persons and the one’s of the suspect and victim, the court said.