& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

STRAIGHT LINE

Hazards of hurried investigation

Muhammad Nurul Huda
Hurried investigation is likely to influence dispassionate collection of evidence, thereby vitiating the statutory process.***
CRIMINAL justice administration experts and jurists would always remind us of the time-tested dictum that "justice delayed is justice denied" and also that "justice hurried is justice buried." Many amongst us may not be aware that professionals tell us that the same dictum, particularly the latter portion, applies equally to the statutory function of criminal investigation.
The above observation assumes significance in the background of the sensational murder of two prominent television personalities on February 11, and the subsequent direction of nabbing the perpetrators within 48 hours of the incident. The wisdom of setting a definite time limit for arresting the culprits of a grisly murder could be open to question, notwithstanding the well-meaning urgency of the political executive.
It is heartening to note that in the rush to show result, some so-called smart investigators have not effected arrests within the stipulated time limit, on the basis of not-so-credible evidence. The murder of media personalities would be on focus and therefore, would call for steps with due diligence and circumspection.
It is worth remembering that investigation swayed by high emotion and the immediacy of the incident would not serve any interest; least of all that of the prosecution for which the state is responsible. One needs to know that in all criminal investigations the state is actually the complainant. The onerous responsibility cannot be discharged lightly because, in the ultimate analysis, the investigator will be all alone to withstand the test of rigorous scrutiny by the court wherein cold facts and hard evidence will matter in deciding the culpability.
The most obvious function of the investigator is to locate the persons who have committed the crimes, by proper investigation, collect the evidence available against them, to arrest such persons and to bring them to the courts to be dealt with according to law. The powers of arrest, search, etc., granted to the investigators are for this purpose only and are regulated by law. Hurried actions, therefore, carry the risk of prejudicing the due diligence expected of the investigator.
Investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the executive through the police department, the superintendence over which vests in the government. When the police have located their man they put him before the court and the court adjudges the guilt of the man placed before it on the basis of evidence adduced. The whole process is regular and precludes any arbitrary action by the executive. Hurried investigation is likely to influence dispassionate collection of evidence, thereby vitiating the statutory process.
Knowledge of the important and relevant sections of current criminal law and procedure will be of great advantage and will enable the investigators to avoid the many pitfalls that would affect the result of the investigation in courts of law. Proper application of mind, insofar as it relates to law and procedure becomes difficult when one has to hurry to satisfy considerations not purely judicial.
An investigator must have his own appreciation of men, and should know whom he has to respect and whom to detest, in whom to repose trust and whom to shun, whose words to take at a par value and what discount to give to others in their honesty and truthfulness. The investigator has to do everything with scrupulous care and absolute accuracy. In hurried investigation he is likely to falter, with resultant adversity on the victim.
In close observation of facts, in searching for the remotest cause and motive for the crime, in tracing blood stains, fingerprints and footprints, in short in attempting to elucidate a problem, the investigating officer may come across new ideas spontaneously which, if found to be accurate and skillfully utilised, will lead to positive results. Hurried investigation by itself will preclude the benefits of reasoned observation and sustained actions.
The pressures consequent upon the murder of two media persons are enormous and it is highly likely in the charged situation that the investigator may start with a preconceived notion. The danger is that such notion may lead the investigator on a wrong track altogether. Additionally, often the most zealous investigator, perhaps the most interested and honest in work, is most apt to be led by it.
Ideally, one must start the investigation with an open mind, study the situation for oneself and then after he has accosted the witnesses, seen things for himself, he can form an idea of the whole thing. Hurried investigation may influence one to start with a notion — "so and so must have done it" — and thus one is apt to goastray from the real mark.
Certainly, a mind revolves around many theories when one starts on the investigation, but one theory can be as good as the other. At the very outset a point may be ascertained on which one feels one can rely on. An opinion is formed which cannot be got rid of. It so happens then that after such formation the details of the case are no longer studied with freedom of mind. Avoidance of such study becomes strongly likely in hurried investigation.
The duty of the investigating officer is not merely to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the court to record a conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth. Last but not the least, it has to be borne in mind that while the judiciary may avoid uncritical overcredulity of the prosecution case, it is likely to entertain scepticism. In our law, the dice, from the very beginning is loaded against investigation effectiveness because the criminal jurisprudence is unequivocally in favour of the offenders. Those keen on hurried investigation have to keep the above in mind because the prevalent quest is to look for cent percent proof.
The writer is a columnist of The Daily Star.