Justice delayed is justice denied
On an average, a case instituted in the year 1980 was sent up for trial in 1981, trial proceedings were completed on an average in the year 1988 and appeals filed by the accused persons were decided in the year 1998. Appeals were followed by revisions (which are nothing but appeals by another name).
Conclusions:
• Judicial processes (trial, appeals, and revisions) in India are tardy. The whole process practically outlives the accused.
• There are too many layers of decision making – trial, first appeal, revision, second appeal and so on.
• The accused has nothing to lose by prolonging trial and post-trial process (and rather gains by the delay).
• Quantum of punishment is meagre.
• Certainty of punishment is missing.
• As a consequence, compliance levels in the society are low. Only the poor fear law.
• All this unmistakably points to one fact: the existing criminal justice system in India needs to change.
Many officers often cite resource constraints (poor judge/Police to population ratio etc.) as a reason for poor performance. However, this is not tenable. Reason: A system needs to be designed keeping in mind the resources (and not the other way round).
Issues for consideration:
(1) Post-trial proceedings take too long and negate the very object of the criminal justice system. There is a case for limiting number of appeals/revisions allowed to a convicted accused to just two.
(2) At present, accused has nothing to lose by filing appeal after appeal. A provision may be made in law that in case the appeal is dismissed, quantum of punishment would be raised. This will discourage frivolous appeals.
(3) Once the appeal of a convicted accused is dismissed, he should logically get an opportunity to file appeal in a higher court. However, the study has shown that 5 convicted accused persons whose conviction was upheld by the appellate court have filed revision in the High Court. In 3 instances, even CBI has filed revisions. Section 397 Cr.PC needs to be amended in a manner that revision does not lie on the issue of sentencing. The word ‘sentencing' should be deleted from this provision.
(4) There is an urgent need to evolve sentencing guidelines. Presently, there is a huge discretion in sentencing. Efficacy of any criminal justice system is governed by the following three factors:
• Quantum of punishment
• Certainty of punishment
• Speedy decision
CBI top brass is too busy in day to day operations. CBI plays little role in improvement of the criminal justice system. As a premier law enforcement agency, it is our duty to work closely with policy makers (law makers, Law Ministry, Law Commission etc.) and make concrete suggestions to get the laws amended. Nobody is closer to ground realities than us. We just have to lift our head and look around. Let us stop worrying about crime statistics for a change.