April - June 2010 - Bureau of Police Research and Development

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Conviction Rate : A Reality CheckAbstractLarge number ofacquittals in criminalcases is widelyperceived to be animportant reasonbehind declining fear oflaw in our Society. Overthe years, people havelost faith in the capacityof the law enforcementmachinery to bringoffenders to justice.at every stage. Few offenders are convicted.Fewer actually spend time in prison. The rest,especially, the white collar variety, are able totake advantage of a host of lacunae in thesystem and manage to avoid incarceration. Aninnocent person wrongly prosecuted by thepolice, on the other hand, has to struggle foryears to prove his innocence. These distortionsare hitting at the root of our Criminal JusticeSystem, highlighting pressing need for reforms.As per official statistics, conviction rate in theCentral Bureau of Investigation in the last 10years has been as under:Table-1: Conviction Rate in CBIYearPercentage1998 72.01999 57.12000 71.92001 70.02002 68.72003 68.42004 66.32005 65.62006 72.642007 67.25The above table demonstrates that the Bureauhas achieved an impressive conviction ratebetween 57.1% and 72.64%. In the States, barringa few like Tamil Nadu where they still have theold system of Police Officers heading theDirectorate of Prosecution resulting in bettercoordination, conviction rate is much lower.Calculation of Conviction Ratecases disposed off by the courts in a calendaryear. Clearly, the focus is on cases ending inconviction, rather than accused persons beingconvicted. Following are a few limitations of thisapproach:(i)Only if one accused is convicted in a case,the whole case is deemed to have resultedin conviction, even though rest of theaccused have been acquitted.At times, accused persons confess after aninformal understanding is reached with thecourt and the Public Prosecutor. Only a mildsentence is imposed in such cases like 'tillrising of the court, etc. Such cases inflatethe conviction rate.Conviction rate takes into account only theoutcome of trial at the first stage i.e.judgement of the trial court. In severalinstances, convicted persons are lateracquitted by the appellate court. Officialconviction rate at present does not reflectdecisions of the appellate courts.There is another important aspect relating toconvictions. A majority of the convictedaccused persons are sentenced to three or lessnumber of years of imprisonment and thereforegranted bail forthwith in accordance withSection 389(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973, which reads as suspension of sentencepending the appeal; release of appellant on bail.Where the convicted person satisfies theCourt by which he is convicted that heintends to present an appeal, the Court shall :where such person, being on bail, issentenced to imprisonment for a term notexceeding three years, orFurther, as the readers would know, convictionrate is calculated on the basis of cases resultingin conviction as a percentage of total number of(ii)where the offence of which such personhas been convicted is a bailable one, andhe is on bail,26 ➢ The Indian Police Journal Vol. LVII-No. 2, April-June, 2010
Conviction Rate : A Reality Checkorder that the convicted person be releasedon bail, unless there are special reasons forrefusing bail, for such period as will affordsufficient time to present the appeal and obtainthe orders of the Appellate Court undersubsection (1), and the sentence ofimprisonment shall, so long as he is soreleased on bail, be deemed to be suspended."Clearly, arrest is the only time when an offenderspends any time behind bars. However, with theamendments in section 41 (2) of CrPC, thesituation is bound to change. Arrests would bemade only in rare cases. The likely outcome ofsuch a legal regime, coupled with inordinatedelays in trials and disposal of appeals, is thatthe accused persons will remain at large (onbail) even after their conviction by the trial court.Cutting a long story short, the officialconviction rate presents a rosy picture andhides many uncomfortable realities. It generatesa false sense of achievement and thus causescomplacency. Further, since emphasis in ourcountry is invariably on crime statistics, thefocus remains on proceedings in the trialcourt. Appeal matters do not receive theattention these deserve because decisions inappeals do not affect statistics. Over the years,officers have developed skills to show goodresults statistically, rather than focus onimproving core aspects of criminalinvestigation and prosecution. As findings inlater paragraphs would show, trial proceedingstake years. Appeals take even longer. Thewhole system appears to be heavily in favourthe guilty.New Conviction RateThe instant study was carried out in one of AntiCorruption branches of CBI on the basis of fiveyear data for the period 1980-1984. For thepurpose of this study, the following two newterms have been defined:-FindingsIt is the accused wise conviction ratepercentage of accused persons (ratherthan cases) convicted by the trial courtout of the total number of persons chargesheeted in a given year.Substantive conviction rate : It is thepercentage of accused persons convictedand actually sent to prison for undergoingsentence (excluding convicted accusedwho are let off on probation, sentenced'till rising of the court' etc.), out of thetotal charge sheeted accused persons.Year wise result of analysis is given in theAnnexure. Gist of findings is as under:-Regular Cases (FIRs) registered: 264Total number of accused persons 698investigated:This included:Public Servants: 486(Central Govt: 484, State Govt: 02)Private Persons : 212Result of Investigation:Number of accused persons 273 (39.11 % ofcharge sheeted: 698)Average time taken tocomplete investigation:13.4 monthsOutcome of Trial of 273 charge sheeted accused:Convicted: 144Acquitted: 78Discharged: 29Accused expired during trial: 06Pending trial: 16It is commonly believedthat with money andmuscle power, one cango scot free even aftercommitting murder.Failure of the system toconvict offenders hascaused a huge dent inits credibility in the eyesof the public.The Indian Police Journal Vol. LVII-No. 2, April-June, 2010 27➢
Page 1: Vol. LVII-No.2APRIL-JUNE, 2010Edito
Page 4 and 5: Abstracts & Key WordsPolice Sub-Cul
Page 9 and 10: Police Sub-Culture : An Adaptation
Page 11 and 12: Police Sub-Culture : An Adaptation
Page 13 and 14: IntroductionSingapore Community Pol
Page 15 and 16: Singapore Community Policing Experi
Page 17 and 18: Singapore Community Policing Experi
Page 19 and 20: Relevance of KPAs & KPIs in Policin
Page 25: Conviction Rate : A Reality CheckSh
Page 29 and 30: Conviction Rate : A Reality Checkof
Page 31 and 32: Conviction Rate : A Reality Checkco
Page 33 and 34: Conviction Rate : A Reality Checkpe
Page 35 and 36: Conviction Rate : A Reality CheckCo
Page 37 and 38: Cell Tower Radiation Hazard: Need f
Page 39 and 40: Cell Tower Radiation Hazard: Need f
Page 41 and 42: Detection of Lorazepam from Human V
Page 47 and 48: Domestic Violence against Women and
Page 49 and 50: Domestic Violence against Women and
Page 51 and 52: IntroductionA Study of Burnout and
Page 53 and 54: A Study of Burnout and Marital Adju
Page 59 and 60: anger has emanated against Pakistan
Page 61 and 62: e overcome and citizens forums and
Page 63 and 64: Marital Rape : The Assasination of
Page 73 and 74: Silence of the Law on Marital RapeG
Page 75 and 76: Silence of the Law on Marital Rapea
Page 77 and 78:
Silence of the Law on Marital Rapeo
Page 79 and 80:
Silence of the Law on Marital Rapeb
Page 81 and 82:
CorrigendumIn Jan-March, 2010 issue
Page 83:
James M Klatell (Aug 2006) : Bomb T
show all

April - June 2010 - Bureau of Police Research and Development

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?