Need to probe all acquittals, Supreme Court orders states

The order was prompted by the acquittal of an accused in a minor’s rape and murder case of 2003. (Thinkstock)

This, the court said, will ensure that the cause of justice is served and that the guilty do not escape punishment, while also guaranteeing that innocents are not implicated in false cases.
The order was prompted by the acquittal of an accused in a minor’s rape and murder case of 2003. Noting major lapses by the police and prosecution in the case, the bench acquitted the accused, but said it was “crestfallen, heartbroken and sorrowful” that it could not serve justice to an innocent child.
“The perpetrators of a horrendous crime, involving extremely ruthless and savage treatment to the victim, have remained unpunished. A heartless and merciless criminal, who has committed an extremely heinous crime, has gone scot-free,” it said.
The court added that if the accused was wrongfully prosecuted, his suffering would also have been “unfathomable”.
The bench of Justices C K Prasad and J S Khehar has given six months to governments of all states and union territories to put in place a mechanism to examine all orders of acquittal and to record reasons for the failure of prosecution cases.
“A standing committee of senior officers of the police and prosecution departments should be vested with aforesaid responsibility. All such erring officers identified as responsible for failure of a prosecution case, on account of sheer negligence or because of culpable lapses, must suffer departmental action. This would infuse seriousness in the performance of investigating and prosecuting duties, and would ensure that investigation and prosecution are purposeful and decisive,” the bench said.
The court also ordered governments to evolve a concrete procedure beforehand so that only persons against whom there is sufficient evidence undergo the rigours of criminal prosecution. It asked the prosecuting agency to rectify all shortcomings, if necessary by requiring further investigation, after the initial probe is completed.
“It should also be ensured that the evidence gathered during investigation is truly and faithfully utilized, by confirming that all relevant witnesses and materials for proving the charges are conscientiously presented during the trial of a case,” the court said.
Underlining that “every acquittal should be understood as a failure of the justice delivery system,” the court reasoned that an acquittal would necessarily mean two things – either the police and prosecution failed to secure justice for the victims, or the accused was framed.
“On the culmination of a criminal case in acquittal, the concerned investigating/prosecuting official(s) responsible for such acquittal must necessarily be identified. A finding needs to be recorded in each case, whether the lapse was innocent or blameworthy. Each erring officer must suffer the consequences of his lapse, by appropriate departmental action, whenever called for,” it said.
It asked governments to also improve their training programmes for investigating and prosecuting agencies so that they could not feign innocence or lack of knowledge if lapses are committed.