Married Daughter Cannot Be Excluded From Compassionate Appointment Solely On The Ground Of Marriage: Chhattisgarh High Court Allahabad HC Condemns Lawyers Seeking Adjournments To Attend District Courts Inherent Powers Under Section 151 CPC Cannot Be Invoked For Restoration Of Possession When Statutory Remedy Of Restitution Exists: Calcutta High Court Invoke Preventive Detention Laws Against Sand Mining Kingpins: Supreme Court Directs ED Probe To Protect Chambal Sanctuary Res Judicata Bars Pendente Lite Purchaser From Re-Agitating Impleadment Under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC If Rejected Under Order I Rule 10: Supreme Court Consumer Complaints Can Continue Against Promoters & Co-Developers Even If Corporate Debtor Is Under IBC Moratorium: Supreme Court IBC Moratorium Protects Only Corporate Debtor, Does Not Bar Consumer Complaints Against Promoters & Directors: Supreme Court Vehicle Registration Certificate Relevant But Not Conclusive For Deciding Interim Custody Under Section 451 CrPC: Supreme Court Lawyer Has No Unqualified Right To Continuous Presence During Entire Interrogation Under Section 38 BNSS: Supreme Court Mandating Continuous Videography Of Accused During Transit Is Unworkable, May Lead To Unfounded Allegations: Supreme Court Centre Introduces FCRA Amendment Bill 2026: Proposes Vesting Of Defunct NGO Assets In 'Designated Authority', Mandates Prior Nod For Probe Written Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest Not Mandatory For Arrests Prior To SC's 'Mihir Rajesh Shah' Judgment: Orissa High Court Passing Ex-Parte Maintenance Order Without Verifying Status Of WhatsApp Or Email Notice Violates Natural Justice: Madhya Pradesh High Court Training ChatGPT On Copyrighted News Is 'Fair Dealing', Does Not Amount To Infringement: Delhi High Court Refuses To Enjoin OpenAI Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rethinking Access to Justice: Proposing a Client-Choice Bar-Integrated Model as a Viable Alternative to the LADC System Delhi Police Grants Permission To Advocates To Protest At Jantar Mantar On August 7 Over LADC Concerns Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

Jharkhand High Court Expresses Alarm Over High Acquittal Rates, Calls for Accountability of Investigating Officers

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


“Every acquittal should be understood as a failure of the justice delivery system,” Supreme Court guidelines emphasized in light of numerous acquittals due to investigative lapses.

In a significant ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has expressed grave concerns over the high number of acquittals in criminal cases within the state, primarily attributed to lapses in investigation. The bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Navneet Kumar, emphasized the necessity of holding investigating officers accountable, drawing on directives from the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai (2014).

The court initiated the proceedings suo moto, addressing the systemic issues within Jharkhand’s criminal justice system. A tabular chart, presented by the assisting counsel to Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, G.A.-I, revealed the alarming number of cases that resulted in acquittals due to insufficient evidence. The court inquired about any actions taken against investigating officers responsible for these lapses, referencing the guidelines laid out by the Supreme Court.

Lack of Accountability:

The court underscored the failure of the State’s criminal prosecution system, highlighting that a substantial number of acquittals indicated systemic inefficiencies and lack of accountability among investigative officers. “Every acquittal should be understood as a failure of the justice delivery system,” the bench remarked, echoing the Supreme Court’s sentiment.

Supreme Court Directives:

Quoting the Supreme Court’s guidelines, the bench emphasized the need for a procedural mechanism to scrutinize acquittals and hold responsible officers accountable. “The prosecuting agency should apply its independent mind, and require all shortcomings to be rectified, if necessary by requiring further investigation,” the Supreme Court had directed. These guidelines aim to ensure that only cases with sufficient evidence proceed to trial, thereby reducing wrongful prosecutions and increasing conviction rates.

The court’s ruling is deeply rooted in the principles outlined by the Supreme Court, stressing the importance of diligent and thorough investigations. The Supreme Court had mandated that every acquittal be examined to identify investigative or prosecutorial lapses. “A finding needs to be recorded in each case, whether the lapse was innocent or blameworthy,” the Supreme Court had stated, underscoring the necessity of accountability in the investigative process.

Justice Shree Chandrashekhar noted, “The criminal prosecution system in the State of Jharkhand is in complete disarray,” highlighting the urgency of reform and adherence to the Supreme Court’s directives. The bench further remarked, “The above mechanism formulated would infuse seriousness in the performance of investigating and prosecuting duties, and would ensure that investigation and prosecution are purposeful and decisive.”

The Jharkhand High Court’s order marks a pivotal step towards overhauling the state’s criminal justice system. By emphasizing the need for accountability and adherence to Supreme Court guidelines, the judgment aims to reduce investigative lapses and improve the prosecution process. This ruling is expected to prompt significant reforms, ensuring that the justice delivery system effectively serves the cause of justice and protects the rights of the innocent.

Date of Decision:17th May 2024

The Court on its own Motion v. The State of Jharkhand and another

Latest Legal News