DC debate: Salman Khan’s acquittal in the 2002 hit-and-run case

Courts must examine defects: C. Pratap Reddy, Principal public prosecutor of Telangana State

The acquittal rate in our country is high. But we cannot attribute this failure to only the prosecution because several other factors including the inordinate delay in trial and instances of witnesses turning hostile come in and lead to many cases ending up in acquittal. The foundation for the Criminal Justice System is the investigation report provided by the police and this has a major bearing on the final outcome.

The Supreme Court has, in many cases, held that mere defects in the investigation and lapses on the part of the investigation officer cannot be ground for acquittal. Further, even if there is negligence on the part of the investigating agency, the court is obliged to scrutinize the prosecution evidence de hors (outside of) such lapses to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and whether such lapses affect the objective of establishing the truth.

It is settled law that not only a fair trial, but a fair investigation is also part of the Constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. In the case of defective investigation, the court has to be circumspect (while) evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect. Doing so is tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigation officer.

No one can deny that often investigators have to undergo pressure from various quarters. The probe agencies may omit crucial aspects which can otherwise lead to conviction. We have to analyse whether the omission is intentional or not. We cannot also forget a crucial aspect in investigation in olden days. Then, investigators were bound to depend on eyewitness accounts to prove a crime before the court of law, apart from relying on piece of corroboratory evidences like post mortem report, inquest and panchanama.

It is relevant to cite here the cases of Jessica Lal and Aarushi Talwar murders, and how the prosecution struggled to prove these cases in the absence of availability of scientific evidence. In the hit and run case of Salman Khan, if the electronic surveillance system like closed circuit cameras was present, the end result would have been different. In the Tomaso Bruno and another versus State of UP case, the apex court pointed out that production of scientific and electronic evidence in court was of great help.

The relevance of electronic evidence is also evident in the light of Mohd. Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein production of transcripts of internet transactions helped the prosecution case a great deal in proving the guilt of the accused. Unfortunately, investigating officers are not given training in interrogation techniques and sophisticated investigation skills. All these factors seriously affect the prosecution. This is a major reason for the failure of the system.

Pradyumna Kumar Reddy T. - Outright guilt must be proven

Courts deal with numerous criminal cases. According to the National Crime Records Bureau, the rate of conviction in crimes committed under IPC has dropped miserably from 62.7 per cent in 1972 to 38.5 per cent in 2012. As a consequence, there are umpteen acquittals on a daily basis, but only a few such acquittals are drawing national and media attention, as is happening now in the case of Salman Khan.

In our system, the prosecution has the burden of proving every element of a crime beyond any reasonable doubt. Further, the evidence adduced has to be reliable, corroborated and fit enough to be accepted by the court. Therefore, unless the prosecution establishes outright guilt, chances are that an individual escapes conviction.  Moreover, a person may be acquitted if the court is able to determine that the prosecution has failed to prove its charges against him. Additionally, the onus is not on the accused to show as to who committed the offence. In view of the same, the role of police in carrying out investigation is of paramount importance for any case to take its final shape.

This brings us to the debatable aspect of the economically and/or politically privileged persons easily getting off the hook. Investigating a high-profile case with reputed personalities as accused raises its own problems. The world is watching every step, thereby prompting one to perform to the best of his abilities. On the contrary, one may also succumb to monetary and political pressures. Those who are well-heeled can afford to get the best legal services. Topnotch lawyers engaged by them get into the intricacies of the matter and find ways to prove the “innocence” of their clients.

State prosecutors are less paid when compared with the fees charged by defence lawyers who appear for private parties. In many of the cases, the prosecutors confine themselves to the brief placed before them by the police. They may not be all that keen to study the evidence. Section 24 Cr PC envisages engaging a special prosecutor to conduct trials. In the 2G spectrum case, the Union of India engaged noted criminal lawyer Uday Lalit to conduct trial and we know how effectively the trial took place.

The verdict delivered by the Bombay HC in the Salman Khan hit-and-run case has raised a furor. The acquittal of a national figure of all the charges levelled against him, by leaving several questions unanswered, is being highly debated. But one must not forget the precedents and the law that’s laid down. It’s a settled law that when there are two different views in a case, the one favorable to the accused has to be taken into consideration. To conclude, I would opine that the rich and the mighty would have access to exceptional legal services alongside other privileges. They enjoy a definite edge over the common man.