Conviction Rate In The State Declining: Madras HC Expresses Concerns Over 'Perfunctory Investigations' By TN Police

The observation was made while hearing an appeal against conviction in a murder case (Causing death by negligence), whereby the Appellant had been prosecuted in the absence of any tangible materials and as per the Court, the same was primarily attributable to some lacuna in the investigation.

"In a murder case, if the trial ends in acquittal, a practice was in existence, not very long ago, to call for an explanation from the investigation officer and disciplinary proceedings were initiated, if it was found that the investigation was perfunctory. But, it appears, this practice is given a go by and the present day investigations are carried out by certain officers as to their whims and fancies," the Bench said.

It noted that several provisions of the IPC viz., Section 166 (Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person), 166A (Public servant disobeying direction under law), 218 (Public servant framing incorrect record) and 219-220 deal with the offence by or relating to public servants.

Despite availability of the aforesaid penal provisions, the Single Bench of Justice B. Pugalendhi noted that the same are not invoked against the erring officials. "If the higher officials, who are expected to take action, are not acting upon, then they must also be made accountable for such dereliction," it said.

In the case at hand, the Court noted that the Appellant had been convicted whereas four accused persons, who were first alleged to have committed the offence of murder in connection to a land dispute, were not arrayed as accused.

It observed that from the investigation agency, the Deputy Director of Prosecution upto the Assistant Public Prosecutor, everybody had acted in a casual manner in this case, so as to bury the truth and the real accused, who committed the brutal murder on a poor man escape from the clutches of law.

Thus, holding that the Appellant should be given the benefit of doubt, the Bench set aside the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court. It said,

"One of the basic principles of the criminal justice system is that the benefit of doubt must always be extended in favour of the accused. 1000 culprits can escape, but, one innocent person should not be punished. The available materials in this case expose the perfunctory and designed investigation and therefore, this Court is left with no other option except to interfere with the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court."

It further observed that no purpose would be achieved even if a de nova investigation is ordered, as ten years had lapsed since the occurrence. Accordingly, it ordered the State to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the victim, i.e. wife of the deceased.

Further, the 'casual manner' in which the investigating authority had proceeded in this case, prompted the Bench to exercise its inherent jurisdiction suo motu under Section 374(2) CrPC and examine the manner in which investigations are carried out in the State, in larger public interest.

The Bench observed that the conviction rate in the State has been declining slowly, while the combined acquittal and discharge rate is on the rise, indicating that the quality of investigation is perfunctory in almost 50 % cases.

Consequently, it observed,

"We are taking pride that the Tamil Nadu State Police is one of the best investigation agencies in the World and it is because of the exemplary service rendered by our police officers. We cannot allow this reputation of the agency to be eroded by some irresponsible officers. It appears that the quality of the investigation in the State is considerably decreasing.

…If the investigations are carried out in such a manner, the victims would definitely loose their faith in the system. The glaring example is that the majority of people are now hailing the police encounters and majority of people are now opting for other modes of redresses, like Kangaroo Courts, etc."

The Bench stated that investigation is not a mechanical work, which can be conducted in a causal manner. It requires an expertise, knowledge and technical skills to collect the materials, which could unearth the truth.

"It is not known whether the training imparted to the officers for conducting such investigation is sufficient or not; and it is not known as to how the officers are qualified to conduct a investigation. It is not known whether any mechanism is available to conduct the investigation or to start the investigation and to deal with the same in a particular manner, for each type of cases.

We are witnessing every day that in a case of theft, though fingerprints were available, they are not taken. Even if they are taken, they are not compared with the fingerprints of the accused. In murder cases, crucial call details were not collected, through the service providers and even if collected, they were not marked before the Court. In the present scientific age, there are several modes available to detect the real accused and to fix them, but, even then, it appears, the investigation agencies are not adopting the same, as is evident from the figures quoted supra from the Crime Records Bureau," the Bench expressed concern.

Responding to this however, the DGP, Chennai informed the Court that to update current knowledge and expertise, Tamil Nadu Police Academy is imparting various refresher courses and standard operating procedures for investigation, check-list for important cases, guidelines issued by various Courts of Law are also taught to the police personnel periodically and a 'Handbook of Investigation' is also provided to the training police officers to enhance their investigation skills by imbibing the nuances of investigation of various types of crimes.

The Bench then lauded the efforts taken by the Department to show the steps / measures taken by them to improve the quality of investigation and emphasized that an 'impartial investigation' is a part of Constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 & 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, an investigation must be unbiased, honest, just and in accordance with law.

It observed,

"The responsibility of the investigation agency in the criminal justice system plays a major role and they are, in fact, the kingpins in the criminal investigation system. Only on a reliable investigation and with reliable evidence, a proper justice can be rendered.

The investigation is the prerogative of the investigation agency. Not even the Court would interfere with the investigation or during the course of investigation and Court would not issue any direction to the manner in which the investigation to be carried out, which would mean that from the lodging of the first information report till the filing of the final report, the right of investigation exclusively is vested with the investigation agency. Whoever high he may be, a victim of any crime has to depend upon the investigation agency. If the investigations are carried out in such a manner, then there cannot be any remedy for the affected victims.

A fair justice can be done, only on the materials placed before the Court by the investigation agency. Therefore, the purpose of an investigation agency must be fair and proper, unbiased and honest."

Case Title: Balamurugan v. State

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order