STATE Vs. FIROZ ALIAS JAGGUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FROM time to time, the Courts are required to undertake a purificatory exercise and on this occasion, we do it with a deep degree of distress. In the course of the last one year it has repeatedly come to the notice of this Court that the working of the Criminal Courts is being systematically sabotaged resulting in the systematic failure of prosecutions. Whereas, the rate of convictions in criminal trials of all categories varies between 54% and 72%, if one were to take a cross-section of the state averages, it is found that the rate of acquittals in this State is around 86% with a conviction average of hardly 14%. The failure rate of prosecutions is abnormally high and this has built up a level of confidence in the criminally minded elements of society that they can infringe the law almost with impunity because even if they are apprehended, the chances of being acquitted are almost certain. This court has several times issued directions to the Judicial Officers presiding over the subordinate Courts that there are two other contributory factors, the first being untimely bail orders and indiscriminately releasing persons on bail on unusually lenient terms compounded by the wrong practice of awarding, as this Court has earlier defined as "fleabite sentences" which are so ridiculously lenient, that they have made a joke on the justice dispensation system. It is the combined defect of all these factors that is providing an incentive for crime and instead of punishing the wrong doer, strangely enough, the party not only gets away, but ironically, is rewarded in the process.

(2.) WHILE analysing the more apparent causes for failure of prosecutions, this Court found the performance of the police to be deplorable. In a large number of instances, the investigation is either slack or tainted and is invariably a combination of both. This Court has issued a series of directions to the Director General of Police and has been assured in turn that the department has taken corrective action and will ensure that the efficiency levels and the honesty levels will be restored. The Vohra Committee report submitted to the Government of India and subsequently accepted by Parliament has outlined the Criminal/politician nexus and this is a factor that has been seriously undermining the functioning of the Police Department because political interference in criminal investigations is rampant and society will have to find a solution to this because it is an area where the cases are stifled at the investigation level, the accused are invariably not even arrested and even if they are, the investigations are closed under political pressure.

(3.) APART from the action directed by this Court against the police, it was found that in a series of cases particularly serious offences such as murder, rape, wife burning and dowry deaths and the like, that the medical and forensic evidence is heavily tampered with. Whether it is a question of the injuries or the post-mortem or forensic analysis such as in rape cases, the medical profession has much to answer for because the entire prosecutions have failed only because of the fact that the doctors have tampered with the medical records or even been bold enough to come to Court and brazenly give evidence in favour of the accused. This Court has repeatedly come down heavily on such malpractices and has even had occasion to direct prosecutions against errant doctors. Again, the Government has given assurances to this Court that stringent remedial action has been undertaken. From time to time, this court has not been at all satisfied with the performance of many of the presiding Officers of the Criminal Courts because there have been many instances when the witnesses have not even been examined, when the evidence has not been properly recorded, a large number of instances where accused have been discharged or acquitted on the ground that the witnesses are not present or the evidence is lacking and we have pointed out on all these occasions that the duty of the Presiding Officer of a criminal Court is to ensure that the trial proceeds fairly and correctly and not to be indifferent to what has happened in the Court room or to accept whatever the Prosecutor does or to wait for every opportunity to give the total benefit of the situation to the accused. The Law provides for adequate remedies in cases where the investigating authorities or the prosecution is lax or negligent and these correctives will have to be applied in the Court room if the public confidence in the justice dispensation machinery is to be restored.