Acquittal In A High-Profile Case And Structural Crisis Of Criminal Justice Delivery

The recent acquittal of Malayalam film actor Dileep in the much-publicised abduction and sexual assault conspiracy case has once again placed India's criminal justice system under sharp public and legal scrutiny. Even before the detailed judgment has been uploaded and examined, public reactions across Kerala and beyond have been deeply polarised. While one section views the verdict as a complete vindication of the accused, another believes that justice has failed the survivor. This sharp divide has been amplified by television debates, social media commentary, and competing narratives built around suspicion, belief, and emotion.

What is notably absent from much of this discourse, however, is a structured legal understanding of what an acquittal actually signifies within the framework of criminal jurisprudence. Courts do not operate on public perception or moral assumptions. The criminal justice system rests on rules of proof, procedure, and constitutional safeguards, all of which operate independently of public outrage or popular sentiment.

Presumption of Innocence and the Prosecution's Burden

At the core of criminal law lies the fundamental principle that every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This presumption is not symbolic—it is a substantive legal right flowing from Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The burden of proving guilt lies entirely on the prosecution, and such proof must meet the exacting standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”.

An acquittal, therefore, does not amount to a judicial declaration of moral innocence. It merely reflects that the prosecution failed to prove the case to the legally prescribed standard. This distinction is critical, particularly in high-profile cases where public opinion often equates acquittal either with total exoneration or with judicial failure. Courts, however, can only act on evidence that is legally admissible, reliable, and proven through due process.

When Acquittal Reflects Systemic Weakness

Viewed through this legal lens, the present acquittal raises concerns not only about the outcome of one prosecution but about deeper structural failures within the criminal justice system itself. A trial that extended over several years, witnessed multiple legal controversies, and involved repeated procedural battles inevitably invites scrutiny of investigative efficiency, prosecutorial consistency, and institutional preparedness.

Delay remains one of the most corrosive elements in criminal adjudication. As time elapses, memories fade, witnesses become hostile, evidence deteriorates, and the prosecution's case loses its coherence. This erosion is particularly acute in sensitive cases involving sexual offences and influential accused persons, where the vulnerability of witnesses is markedly heightened. Absent sustained institutional protection, the integrity of witness testimony remains under constant threat.

This challenge is further compounded by the lack of an effective and deterrent mechanism to hold accountable those witnesses who retract or contradict their statements during trial without any justifiable cause. When witnesses, having voluntarily signed their statements before the police, later repudiate them, they effectively undermine the entire criminal justice system. Such conduct must invite thorough investigation, prompt prosecution, and strict penal consequences, as these unchecked reversals gravely impair the truth-finding function of criminal courts and significantly contribute to miscarriages of justice.

Investigative Gaps and Procedural Vulnerabilities

The quality of investigation remains another area of serious concern. Modern criminal trials increasingly depend upon scientific evidence, forensic credibility, and technologically secured data. Delays in recording statements, weak chain-of-custody documentation, fragmented forensic linkage, and lack of supervisory oversight significantly dilute evidentiary strength.

Equally problematic is the frequent absence of continuity in prosecution. Changes in prosecuting officers, shifting trial strategies, and inconsistencies in witness examination often result in material contradictions that ultimately benefit the defence. Courts, bound by strict rules of evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (earlier the Evidence Act), cannot bridge factual gaps through speculation or moral reasoning.

Power Imbalance in High-Profile Prosecutions

Cases involving influential public figures also expose a persistent structural imbalance between accused persons with significant resources and victims with limited institutional support. The accused often command superior legal representation, media reach, and financial capacity. Victims, in contrast, face social stigma, professional isolation, personal insecurity, and immense psychological pressure throughout the prolonged lifespan of the trial.

While courts attempt to maintain neutrality, true equality before law remains compromised unless the State actively ensures witness security, investigative independence, and protection from procedural attrition.

Public Perception Versus Due Process

Public outrage in cases of sexual violence is both natural and understandable. However, when emotion replaces legal reasoning, there is a real danger of undermining due process. Media trials and public verdicts cannot be substitutes for judicial adjudication. Criminal courts must decide cases strictly on the basis of evidence brought on record, irrespective of the popularity—or unpopularity—of the accused.

At the same time, recurring high-profile acquittals in serious offences inevitably erode public confidence in institutions. When the gap between public expectation and legal outcome repeatedly widens, it signals not merely judicial restraint but possible systemic malfunction.

The Larger Message of the Verdict

This acquittal ultimately conveys a message far larger than the fate of any one accused individual. It exposes the urgent need for deep, structural reforms in India's criminal justice delivery system—reforms that must go well beyond symbolic legislative changes.

There is a pressing necessity for time-bound investigation and expeditious completion of trials, particularly in cases involving grave and sensitive offences. Delay weakens evidence, exhausts victims, and diminishes the deterrent impact of criminal law. Parallelly, investigation must be strengthened through scientific and technologically supported methods to ensure accuracy, credibility, and procedural integrity.

An equally critical reform lies in the establishment of a strong, enforceable witness protection regime. Without real protection against intimidation, coercion, and inducement, criminal trials risk losing their evidentiary backbone. Further, the institutional independence of investigating agencies must be safeguarded through statutory insulation from political or external influence.

The adoption of continuous trial mechanisms in serious offences would prevent tactical delays and witness fatigue. This must be supported by strict professional accountability of investigating officers so that negligence, misconduct, and procedural lapses do not escape consequence. Finally, no structural reform can succeed without adequate judicial infrastructure and sufficient judicial manpower to handle the increasing burden of cases.

Unless these reforms are pursued in a coordinated and sustained manner, the growing disconnect between legal outcomes and public expectations will continue to widen, further weakening faith in the justice delivery system.

Finally the acquittal in a case of this magnitude should neither be treated as a moment of unqualified celebration nor as conclusive proof of systemic collapse. It must instead serve as a serious reminder of the fragile balance upon which criminal justice rests—between proof and protection, between delay and deterrence, and between power and vulnerability.

The real question raised by this verdict is not confined to the culpability of one individual. It is whether India's criminal justice system, in its present form, is adequately equipped to deliver swift, fearless, and scientifically robust justice in complex, high-stakes prosecutions.

That is the larger question this verdict places before the nation.

The author is an Advocate-on-Record practicing before the Supreme Court of India.

Views Are Personal.