Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21 Motor Vehicles Act: Claimant Cannot Invoke Jurisdiction Of A Forum Where Neither Accident Occurred Nor Defendant Resides: Supreme Court Article 226 | Writ Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Protect Possession If Factual Matrix Is Disputed: Supreme Court Suppression Of Material Facts In Writ Petition Under Article 32 Renders Challenge Non-Maintainable: Supreme Court

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