Conviction Rate : A Reality CheckA well defined sentencing policy can ensurethe first two, once the accused is convicted.This also brings us to an important issue. What isthe best parameter to define/ascertain the efficacy<strong>of</strong> a criminal justice system? As stated above, thethree most important factors that most closelydetermine the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> a criminal justicesystem are time taken to complete the proceedings,quantum <strong>of</strong> punishment <strong>and</strong> certainty <strong>of</strong> punishment.A weighted average <strong>of</strong> the three would, therefore,be the best parameter for determining howeffective a system is. These three, in turn, may bemeasured in terms <strong>of</strong> time taken to complete trial<strong>and</strong> dispose <strong>of</strong> any resultant appeals/revisions,quantum <strong>of</strong> sentence as a percentage <strong>of</strong> maximumpunishment for all the <strong>of</strong>fences for which a person isprosecuted <strong>and</strong> number <strong>of</strong> eligible <strong>of</strong>fenders optingfor plea bargaining respectively.There is a strong case for setting up separate fulltime appellant courts. Presently, Judges in the HighCourts <strong>and</strong> Supreme Court deal with mix <strong>of</strong> allmatters including appeals. Current matters receivepriority <strong>and</strong> appeals are taken up only if time permits.Separate full time courts will bring down thependency considerably. After all, no new evidenceis adduced at the stage <strong>of</strong> appeal. Only the caserecord <strong>of</strong> the trial court is examined. In the CBI,judgments are scrutinized at multiple levels (PP, SP,DLA, DIG, JD & HO) in a short span <strong>of</strong> 90 days fordeciding whether to file an appeal or not. Scrutiny ateach level does not take more than one day <strong>and</strong> ismore <strong>of</strong> an academic exercise. It should be possibleto easily outsource this job in a manner that chances<strong>of</strong> unfair decisions are also ruled out. Panel <strong>of</strong> retiredJudges can be constituted <strong>and</strong> assigned appeals tobe decided on the same day. This will ensure speedydisposal <strong>and</strong> fair play.Special IssuesIn all police organisations, old records are weededout at regular intervals. In the CBI, case files areweeded out 5 years after closure <strong>of</strong> the file i.e. afterthe matter is allowed to rest. Considerable difficultywas faced while compiling data in the instant studybecause records <strong>of</strong> several cases have beendestroyed. According to author, case files contain awealth <strong>of</strong> data. Lot <strong>of</strong> research can be done on thebasis <strong>of</strong> this data for betterment <strong>of</strong> the criminal justicesystem. It is, therefore, strictly recommended that acopy <strong>of</strong> the FIR, FRs, comments <strong>of</strong> senior <strong>of</strong>ficers,case diaries, charge sheet <strong>and</strong> judgments <strong>of</strong> thetrial court <strong>and</strong> appellant courts should be preservedin the form <strong>of</strong> a folder <strong>and</strong> kept in the unit library.Although, space is not a very big consideration, yetif it is felt otherwise, we may retain only s<strong>of</strong>t copies.Archiving needs to be put in place in policeorganisations.There is too much focus on deadlines <strong>and</strong> crimestatistics in police. Please remember: as the abovefindings clearly show, investigation takes less than10% <strong>of</strong> the total time in the criminal proceedings.Therefore, police hierarchy should stop worryingabout over 2 years, over 1 year <strong>and</strong> over 6 month oldcases. Instead, focus should shift to the quality <strong>of</strong>investigation.<strong>Police</strong> top brass, especially in the CBI, is too busy inday-to-day operations. They hardly play any role inthe improvement <strong>of</strong> the criminal justice system. Assenior police <strong>of</strong>ficers, it is our duty to work closelywith policy makers (law makers, Law Ministry, LawCommission etc.) <strong>and</strong> make concrete suggestionsto get the laws amended. Nobody is closer to groundrealities than us. We just have to lift our head <strong>and</strong>look around.Let us stop worrying about crime statistics for achange !A word <strong>of</strong> caution here. The objective <strong>of</strong> thestudy was to bring out the stark realities/maladiesafflicting the criminal justice system as a whole<strong>and</strong> to draw attention to the urgent need forimproving the basics <strong>of</strong> criminal investigation<strong>and</strong> prosecution. The fact that the data pertainsto a particular branch <strong>of</strong> the CBI is a merecoincidence. The results are not expected to bemuch different had it been from any otherinvestigating agency, namely, the state police oreven a non-police agency. Further, as the data32 ➢ The Indian <strong>Police</strong> Journal Vol. LVII-No. 2, <strong>April</strong>-<strong>June</strong>, <strong>2010</strong>
Conviction Rate : A Reality Checkpertained to an Anti Corruption Branch <strong>of</strong> CBIsituated in a particular state, the above mentionedfindings/recommendations relate more to anticorruption work in that State. Even thoughsituation in other states is not likely to be verydifferent, it is recommended to carry out similarstudies <strong>and</strong> arrive at conclusions applicable tothe whole country.AcknowledgementShri Mukesh Bansal, Sub Inspector providedinvaluable assistance in collecting data for this study.He was ably assisted by Shri Ranjeet Meena,Inspector; Shri Ravi Banawat, Sub Inspector <strong>and</strong>Shri U.K.Sharma, Sub Inspector, all from the CBI.Thank them for their assistance.AnnexureYear-Wise Result Of AnalysisYear 1980In the year 1980, the branch registered a total <strong>of</strong> 32Regular Cases. The result <strong>of</strong> investigation, trial,appeals <strong>and</strong> revisions is as under :-Result <strong>of</strong> Investigation :Total number <strong>of</strong> accused 86 (Public Servants:persons investigated: 69, Private Persons:17)Number <strong>of</strong> accused 27 (31%)persons charge sheeted:Average time taken in 10.6 monthsinvestigation:Result <strong>of</strong> Trial <strong>of</strong> 27 charge sheeted accused:Acquittals: 8Convictions: 19Average time taken for trial: 6 years8 monthsAccused wise conviction rate: 19/27 × 100= 70.37 %Break up <strong>of</strong> 19 convicted persons:Released on probation: 03Underwent imprisonment:NilAppeal filed: 16Result <strong>of</strong> appeal:Accused expired during pendency 02<strong>of</strong> appeal:Acquitted by appellant court: 05Conviction upheld <strong>and</strong> accused 04released on probation:Appeals still pending: 03Conviction upheld but accused 02filed revision in HC (still pending):Average time taken in deciding appeal: 12years 9months(calculated on the basis <strong>of</strong> 10 appeals which havebeen decided)Year 1981In the year 1981, the branch registered a total <strong>of</strong> 50Regular Cases. The result <strong>of</strong> investigation, trial,appeals <strong>and</strong> revisions is as under:-Result <strong>of</strong> Investigation:Total number <strong>of</strong> accused 135 (Publicpersons investigated: Servants: 89,Private Persons: 46).Number <strong>of</strong> accused 70 (51.85%)persons charge sheeted:Average time taken in 14 monthsinvestigation:Result <strong>of</strong> Trial <strong>of</strong> 70 charge sheeted:Accused expired during trial: 01Acquitted: 19Discharged: 06Convicted: 34Pending trial: 10Average time taken for trial: 7 years 10monthsAccused wise conviction rate: 34/59 x100=57.62 %Break up <strong>of</strong> 34 convicted persons:Released on probation: 01Underwent imprisonment: 01Appeal filed: 32The Indian <strong>Police</strong> Journal Vol. LVII-No. 2, <strong>April</strong>-<strong>June</strong>, <strong>2010</strong> 33➢