Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

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