Research On Under Trial Cases In India
Introduction
Under trial cases are those cases in which a person who is being an accused in the criminal case and the charge sheet against the accused has not been filed yet or the charge sheet has been filed but the case is still going on in the court. As per the National crime records bureau 60-70 % of the person who are sentenced to jail are under trial cases i. e. over 200, 000 under-trial prisoners. The stay of prison, in many cases exceeded the maximum sentence of crime which they may or may not have committed.
Reasons for such cases
In some cases prisoners too poor to pay their bail bond There are many (around 60%) cases where the police makes an unnecessary arrest The cases remain pending in the court for years, this results to very slow trials Investigation carried out by the police is too slow due to lack of police personnel.
Problems due to such cases
Since there are no classification of criminals of the prisoners inside the prison, so the person who is spending prison time for the first time may come out as full-fledged criminals There is always a danger of prison violence which is either the result of gang violence inside the prison or the mistreatment by the police. Once such case is khatoon vs state of bihar where police blinded 80 suspected accused. . As there are many under-trials, prisons becomes overcrowded which leads to lack of safety and health conditions. Thus communicable diseases spread easily. Prolonged incarceration also leads to a mental breakdown.
Human rights violation
Due to delay of the cases which are on trial, the person charged in under trial case have to spend a longer period of time in the prisons than usual. Dr. Apj Abdul Kalam the then president of India took the concern over the matter and suggested that a study should be conducted to examine the judicial delays. He was there inaugurating a two-day seminar on narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances on March 26, 2006, Dr. Kalam stressed upon the need to speed up the judicial process with minimum adjournments. He further stated that it will be useful to conduct a case study of hundred cases so as to examine the number of adjournments and the duration it takes to settle a case on an average. The study will also throw a light on how we can speed up the judicial process.
It was informed by the then Minister of Law and Justice Mr. H. R. Bhardwaj to the Parliament on 30 November, 2007, the unsatisfactory appointment of judges, government counsels, imperfect legislation, indiscriminate closure of courts, granting of unnecessary adjournments and additional burden on courts due to election petition. All these added to the backlog cases of the courts besides shortage of judges. There are certain cases where cases are quickly disposed off by the courts. A court in Bihar, established a landmark result by delivering undertaking justice when it sentenced two rapists to seven years in jail at the end in a two-day trial. The trial set the record for the shortest judicial proceeding in India. Sessions Judge Arun Kumar Srivastava began the trial on July 25 and sent the accused to jail on July 27 in 2006. In June 2005, a Jodhpur court sentenced the rapists of a German tourist within 20 days of the crime. In April 2006, a Jaipur court sentenced a rapist of a German student within a week. A data shows that 64. 1 percent inmates of the total under trials were detained in the custody up to six months in India as per data collected for the end of 2006 whereas the corresponding figure in Punjab was 62. 8 percent slightly lower than that of India. The percentage of inmates detained under judicial custody from six months to one year was 17. 4 in India and 13. 4 percent in Punjab which was 4 percent less than the Indian percentage. 5. 11 percent under trials were detained for one year to two years in India and 7. 3 percent in Punjab. However 6. 9 percent under trials were detained in Punjab for 2 years to 3 years which was 2. 3 percent more than the Indian percentage. Similarly 5. 5 percent under trials were detained for the period of 3 to 5 years in Punjab approximately double than that of Indian percentage (2. 3). The percentage of under trials detained for more than 5 years was 3. 9 percent in Punjab which was far more than Indian percentage (0. 6). On the whole, 16. 3 percent under trials were detained in judicial custody for more than 2 years in Punjab which was more than the double of Indian percentage.
Causes
Non-appearance of Police Witnesses
There are many cases where witnesses like police officers do not attend the court proceedings due to law and order arrangements and citing other reasons. In the Indian system of Policing, Investigation and Law and Order are dealt with by the same agency and it is difficult for the officers responsible for the maintenance of law and order to investigate the cases and pursue the same in the courts. Non-appearance of police witnesses in the courts delays the trial as cases are constituted by the police officers. The Supreme Court of India has given verdict in Prakash Singh & Others vs. Union of India to ensure separation of investigation from law and order. Expressing concern on the present system, the Supreme Court has reiterated that “More than 25 years back i. e. in August 1979, the Police Commission Report Supreme Court of India, Writ Petition (civil) 310 of 1996, Date of Judgment: 22 September 2006 recommended that the investigation task should be beyond any kind of intervention by the executive or non-executive. For separation of investigation work from law and order, even the Law Commission of India in its 154th Report had recommended such separation to ensure speedier investigation, better expertise and improved rapport with the people without any watertight compartmentalization in view of both functions being closely interrelated at the ground level. ” Article 36 of Punjab Police Act 2007 makes provisions for separation of investigation from law and order for effective crime investigation. It says that the investigation staff shall ordinarily not be diverted for any other duties, except with the permission of the Deputy Inspector General of Police of the Range concerned. Section 7 15 of the Act gives minimum fixed tenure for the field officers to ensure professionalism and better administration of criminal justice system. However, the things can only be changed when the verdicts and rules are implemented in letter and spirit.
Delay Tactics by Advocates and Accused
Many times defence advocates take undue adjournments just to delay the process of trial, as pointed out by the public prosecutors. Sometimes undertrials on bail do not appear on the date of trail by citing reasons such as illness or some urgent work. Many times they give false medical certificates. The situation gets worse where one undertrial is in judicial custody and his accomplice on bail adopts delay tactics in the same case. In many cases, accused adopt delay tactics to kill the time and win over the witnesses with intent to get acquitted. Public prosecutors and police officers were of the opinion that undue adjournments should not be allowed by the trial courts on filthy grounds. A mutually agreed date sheet should be prepared and followed in spirit to ensure smooth and speedy trial.
Lack of Coordination between Various Organs of Criminal Justice System
For smooth conduct of trials, it is necessary to have coordination between the organs of criminal justice system. In the Indian system of criminal justice administration, the following organs are important: a. Judiciary b. Prosecution c. Police d. Prison e. Advocates from defence side It has been seen in practice that lack of coordination among these functionaries constitutes a major cause of delay in quick disposal of cases. Quarterly coordination meetings chaired by the District and Sessions Judge and attended by the representatives of other departments does not serve the purpose in the changing atmosphere of criminal justice system. There should not be any kind of watertight compartmentalisation between these functionaries. An informal system should be devised to 8 make better coordination in the larger interest of criminal justice administration. Upneet Lalli (2002) has also concluded that training programmes for judges, prosecution, police and prison officers should be held and a forum for proper coordination of Criminal Justice System agencies should be evolved.
Preventive measures
There are two types of offences in the Code of Criminal Procedure of India (1973): Bailable and Non-Bailable. In Bailable cases, Police or the Investigating agency has the power to release the accused on bail. In the Non-Bailable cases, Police or the investigating Agency has to produce the accused within 24 hours of arrest before the competent magistrate. It is the discretion of the Magistrate depending upon the gravity of matter as well as evidence on the file to send the accused on remand or to release him or her on bail. Sections 436 to 450 of the Code are related with bail and Bond. However Section 436A has been inserted in the Code of Criminal Procedure by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005, which has given some relief to the undertrials and which is required to be implemented in letter and spirit. This section is reproduced as under: "436A. Maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be detained. - Where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Code of an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishments under that 141 law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties: Provided that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail instead of the personal bond with or without sureties: Provided further that, no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law. ”
It is evident that nobody can be detained in remand more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the offence. A person detained in custody can apply for bail pending trial if he or she has already undergone half of the maximum prescribed imprisonment for that offence. Police Officers are also of the view that provision of bail can be applied in the normal cases like cheating, accident, dowry, and hurt cases. The police normally oppose the bail in the cases like murder, Fake Currency, NDPS and other heinous cases.
Conclusion
Around 65 percent of prison population in India belongs to undertrial category which is very high as compared to the UK (17. 5) and the USA (20. 2). Despite various enactments and directions, treatment of undertrials in the jails is not good. Undertrials are kept in the same premises and even in the same barracks in the jails as are meant for the convicts which is a major human rights issue. Trial of cases is delayed inordinately and undertrials have to stay in the jails for longer periods. It takes average 34 hearings and 2. 6 years to decide a case after framing the charges when accused is in custody, as per this study. In some cases, 145 undertrials have to spend more time in the judicial custody than their pronounced sentences. Acquittal after confinement is a serious violation of human rights. The National Human Right Commission of India (NHRC) has also observed that the number of undertrial prisoners is increasing day-by-day and the period for which they languish in jails is also a very long one. In a few cases, the NHRC has found undertrials in judicial custody for 24-25 years, which is far beyond the punishment prescribed for any offence under the penal law. 45 In Amritsar Central Jail, 7. 1 percent undertrials were detained in judicial custody for 2 years and more which was similar to Indian percentage (7. 5). However, it is much less than Punjab percentage (16. 3). At the same time, the percentage of undertrials released within 6 months (69. 1 percent) in Amritsar Central Jail is considerably more than that of Punjab (62. 8 percent) as well as that of India (64. 1 percent).
The main causes of delay in the trials are shortage of judges, non-service of summons of witnesses and non-appearance of witnesses, non-appearance of police witnesses on the pretext of VIP duty or 12 transfer to other places, non-production of accused from the jail because of unavailability of escort, delay tactics by advocates and accused, non-production of case property, undue adjournments because of magistrates on leave and lack of coordination between various organs of Criminal Justice Administration.
