CHIEF Justice Mr Surendra Kumar Sinha has remarked recently as reported in the media on ineptitude of our prosecution lawyers and police in framing cases against the accused. He has stressed on better training for them. He made this point earlier too. He has even offered himself to participate in training the police but he regretted it was not heeded to. He said, weak cases so framed hindered proper dispensation of justice and ultimately the offenders got scot-free and the victims denied justice. The Chief Justice has rightly pointed out his finger to the flawed prosecution. Without effective prosecution, the demand for dispensation of justice remains a far cry in the wilderness. We have seen press reports how policemen do brisk business armed with Sec- 54 and the way they do it on many other occasions of national crisis and emergency. It was seen they had included names of many innocent people not at all present on the crime spot but were targeted by police with an ulterior motive. When police make FIR and finally prepare charge-sheets after a considerable time they also make both advertent and inadvertent omissions or leave out some flaws or even deliberately records inappropriate law sections so that finally the accused get a clean chit.
The whole gamut of the issue is not only making a raw and weak case of an offense but also deliberately tampering with what could have been a genuine case against the offenders. The prosecution and the police in particular make an excess of things also when dealing with taking evidence of witnesses, particularly related to evidence in sex assaults and obscenity related cases under the Evidence Act which simply flouts human dignity. The easy police remand in criminal cases has helped to seek justice obtained through forceful self-confession. So the police investigation means police torture. The Chief Justice is surely not unaware of police torture and abuse of the remand orders.
Our judiciary is independent as guaranteed by the Constitution and law passed in the light of the Supreme Court’s own initiative. Now there is more Judicial Magistrates holding independent power. The judges have better amenities to enjoy but as the Chief Justice himself has hinted that the Supreme Court seemingly enjoy better amenities though that may not be enough for them for dignity commensurate to their responsibility.
But the truth remains that the justice seekers suffer most for the weaknesses in the judicial process as pointed by the Chief Justice himself. When the Chief Justice himself is so much aware of the flaws in the criminal cases it is easy for him to allow bails to accused persons liberally treated and police remand should be most sparingly used only in respect of known dangerous criminals.
A person, in the eye of law; is innocent before he has been found guilty but the question is why a person should suffer the indignity of police remand and imprisonment without bail? This question should be most important for dealing with flaws and negligence in criminal proceedings. Justice demands these oppressive methods be removed. Chief Justice can be helpful very easily in these regards. This will do much to make the police take up criminal cases seriously and improve all round atmosphere of the justice system, particularly at lower level.
Our hope will be that his Lordship the Chief Justice will issue orders immediately to make lives of the innocent ones easier and build greater trust in the judiciary that bails should be issued and not denied arbitrarily without his past records showing him to be a dangerous person and no police remand for investigation in police custody without the presence of his lawyer.
