Hasty probe blamed for low conviction rate in state

Guwahati: The slapdash style of state police’s investigation into criminal cases has led to an abysmal conviction rate in the state.
As a result, criminals continue to enjoy a safe haven here and evade punishment.
The latest National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) report for 2014 stated that of 21,648 criminal cases, which completed trial in various courts across the state, conviction came only in 2,845 cases with a poor 13.1% in the category of IPC cases.
The figure was not only below the national conviction rate of 45.1%, but even poorer in respect to other NE states. The figures imply that Assam Police lacks legal insight and are clueless about ways to present evidence before the court.
“Mizoram recorded the country’s highest conviction rate in IPC cases at 92.9%. In the insurgency-hit state of Nagaland, the conviction rate was recorded at a high of 84.7% last year, too,” said the records.
Last year, in almost 18, 803 IPC cases, accused were acquitted. The acquittal of Ulfa leader Raju Baruah in a murder case is one of the instances of such incident. He was accused of killing three persons in Nalbari town in 1989 in front of a large crowd.
He was acquitted on the basis of ‘benefit of doubt’ as police investigation failed to prove the charges with sufficient evidences.
Public prosecutor advocate Z Kamar told TOI, “Police needs to be imparted legal knowledge during their training, which should be updated from time to time when there is a change or amendment in the law. The chargesheets in criminal cases need to be prepared under expert supervision.”
Kamar underscored the need for a scientific way of investigation into these cases. “It’s very difficult when it comes to circumstantial evidence. Investigations need to be backed by latest forensic facilities. Lab and other scientific facilities are not up to the mark here,” he added.
In many cases, the investigating officer presents only the confessional statement made by the accused before the police, while he was in their custody, as evidence, whereas Sections 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, clearly states that no confession made before police or in their presence will be treated as legal evidence.
Kamar admitted that the public prosecutors face problems while arguing criminal cases in the court because of the casual manner in which police investigate these cases.