Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High 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