Why are the guilty of serious cases acquitted?

The country's judicial system is still not working at a fast pace, the result of which comes in the form of the acquittal of criminals. The longer the case drags on in the court, the more people lose interest. If there is a big case and in that case, only a date is given for the decision from the court, then people lose their minds from that case. Sometimes the issues break down. Many times the police teams are also guilty in this, they file the charge sheet late, and because of this, the dates keep getting in the court. Lawyers are also responsible for delayed decisions in cases, they go on pending the case. If the police file a case with sufficient evidence and the court is ready to pronounce the verdict soon, then the accused will not be able to escape. 

  *-Priyanka Saurabh*                                                         

  Due to the poor system of judiciary and policing in the country, even the accused in the most serious cases are acquitted by the court. After their acquittal, the intellectual class starts raising all kinds of questions. After that, those loopholes of the system are discussed due to which the criminals are acquitted but all this lasts only for a few days, after that the system starts running on its own in the same way. It cannot be improved. The longer a case remains pending in the court, the weaker its decision. If the court keeps taking date after date for the case in the court, then its result is also not good. During the long-running case, the officers related to that case get transferred, and many witnesses are dead. Evidence gets lost. The criminals get the benefit of all these. 

The country's judicial system is still not working at a fast pace, the result of which comes in the form of the acquittal of criminals. The longer the case drags on in the court, the more people lose interest. If there is a big case and in that case, only a date is given for the decision from the court, then people lose their minds from that case. Sometimes the issues break down. Many times the police teams are also guilty in this, they file the charge sheet late, and because of this, the dates keep getting in the court. Lawyers are also responsible for delayed decisions in cases, they go on pending the case. If the police file a case with sufficient evidence and the court is ready to pronounce the verdict soon, then the accused will not be able to escape. 

  Many times the police investigation leaves many flaws in it, and the criminals get the full benefit of it. The acquittal of criminals involved in a criminal incident is like a slap on the face of the system. The judiciary gives a date for the hearing of the case for a long time. Many times witnesses break down during long trials, they die, and lawyers also lose interest. Even witnesses forget things. There is also one thing that the longer the case goes on, the worse will be its decision. The role of the police before the court is most important. If any crime is not investigated in a good and scientific way, then surely acquittals will continue to happen.

The big reason behind this is that judges give decisions based on evidence. In many serious crimes, criminals are let off due to a lack of evidence. Evidence collection by the police is the basis of any case related to crime. In our country, the police prosecute criminal cases. Punishment is given only based on evidence collected by the police. If there is a defect in our basic policing, then the matter of punishment is meaningless. Fingers are not raised only on the police, in such cases questions are raised on the lower judiciary as well. The question arises as to why the lower court does not pay attention to the evidence collected by the police and whether scientific methods have been taken care of in collecting it or not. 

The higher courts give verdicts only after appreciating the evidence and examining all the legal and constitutional aspects. Even in the lower court, the decision is taken based on law. If it is assumed that in 35% of the cases related to the death sentence, acquittal is being done by the higher court, then I believe that the judges of the lower courts, somewhere or the other, pronounce the sentence based on insufficient evidence. For this reason, the High Court and the Supreme Court overturn the decision of the lower court in these cases. There is a difference between imposing a sentence and upholding a sentence. For example, if someone has committed a murder, his video footage is also there, even then he cannot be punished, if the footage is not collected properly.

We have the Evidence Act and Criminal Procedure Code. If they are not followed properly, then in such a case the lower court even gives punishment, then that punishment cannot be sustained in the higher court on technical grounds. The judiciary needs to be strengthened. There is a need for reform from a lower court to a high court. Lower Judiciary has a huge role in the justice system. The lower judiciary in our country is not sufficiently digitally sound. The quality of lawyers in these courts also cannot be considered adequate. Lawyers do not get many opportunities in these courts. This is the reason why very few good law experts go there and practice. There is also a lack of infrastructure in the lower judiciary. These places have an insufficient number of judges and an insufficient number of public prosecutors. There is a shortage of trained lawyers. Because of all this, there are flaws in the system. 

When you go to remote areas, you will find that in lower courts only judges write evidence, while in big cities there are stenographers for this. Staff and file management is also a big issue in the lower courts. There is an inadequate system in the lower court. Due to insufficient grounds in awarding the punishment, the death sentence is later changed in the higher courts. The Supreme Court changes the death sentence only based on the criteria of the law. In the view of the Supreme Court, there must have been some lapse in the lower courts. Only then the death sentence cannot be sustained. When a crime is committed in a remote area, it takes a long time for the forensic team to reach it. In such places, the police do not have any forensics knowledge. In criminal cases, if there is even the slightest doubt, whether, in procedure or the collection of evidence, the benefit goes to the accused. Police also need reform. They should have sufficient knowledge of collecting evidence such as forensics. Sufficient evidence has to be gathered for fair justice. This needs to be given very serious attention.