SOP Station House Management by Kerala Police

9.8. ACQUITTALS- ( WHY PROSECUTIONS FAIL IN THE COURT ?) 103
9.8 Acquittals- (
Why prosecutions
fail in the
Court ?)
The Investigating Officers will
be under the impressìons that
the moment they lay a Charge
Sheet in the Court, their responsibility
ceases.It is a total
misconception and the IO
should feel that his responsibility
cease only after the
successful prosecution and not
merely filing a Charge Sheet.
The following are some of
the reasons...
(1) Irregularities in Investigation.
(2) Illegalities in Investigation.
(3) Defective Charge
Sheet.
(4) Effective Defense
Counsel.
(5) Presiding Officer prejudiced.
(6) No proper deposition
of witnesses.
(7) Manner of deposition
of witnesses.
(8) Non-briefing of witnesses.
(9) Hostility of witnesses.
(10) Illiteracy of witnesses.
(11) Non-production of
witnesses in time.
(12) Non-depositing of
properties.
(13) Non-insisting of presence
of witnesses.
(14) Non-attendance of
Police in Courts.
(15) Improper or ineffective
conducting of cases.
(16) Collusion of IO or
Prosecutor with accused.
(17) Non-refreshing memory
of IO.
(18) Delay in trials.
(19) Benefit of Doubt.
(20) Non-cooperation between
Police and Prosecutor
and between prosecution and
Court.
(21) Non-attending of
Court by IO.
9.9 Effective Convictions
(1) The irregularities do occur
due to perfunctory investigation
and more so not
showing proper attention towards
the existing practice of
investigation. Proper case
should be taken right from the
FIR till its proper disposal in
the Court and utmost care is
taken with devotion.
(2) Illegalities do occur,
when the IOs, is not well
equipped with the legal procedures.
The IO should not
hesitate to contact his superior
offìcers or the legal advisors
and see that before report
is filed, defective.
(3) Detective Charge
Sheet is due to nonapplication
of legal knowledge
and improper drafting of reports.
(4) The defence counsel is
to be properly challenged by
relevant and timely assistance
to the prosecuting officer by
the investigating agency.
(5) It is the duty of the
IO to be present at the Court
and in his absence to depute
a responsible officer so that
the witnesses depose their evidence
properly. Even if the
defense counsel by threat or
by promise tries to see that
witnesses do not depose properly,
by the presence of responsible
officer, the witness
may morally get courage and
if he tends towards defense,
may get scared of the presence
of Police.
(6) At times, the presiding
officer may not be convinced
by the way in which the witness
deposes evidence. The
IO should see that the prosecutor
clarifies and illustrates
it.
(7) Every IO should see
that before the witness is produced
in the witness box, he
is thoroughly briefed and debrìefed
not only by him but
also by the prosecutors.
(8) Proper care should be
taken of the witness who is
likely to turn hostile including
the reasons for hostility such
as for the sake of money; fear
friendship or influence etc.,
and see that these hurdles do
not come up by making the
witness confident.
(9) Illiterate witness is
more dangerous since he is
likely to be tempted by defense
by all means. He should
be taken into confidence by
the IO and see that he does
not lose the track; especially
during his crossexamination.
It is advisable to brief and
debrief him and see that a
responsible Police officer is
present during trial.
(10) It is the duty of the
IO to see that the witnesses
are produced in the Court in
advance, instead of producing
them at the 11th hour or late.
By producing the witness in
advance not only the prosecutor,
the witness also will be
confident. Otherwise, he may
not do justice in hurry.
(11) At times, it is observed
that though the witnesses
are present, their attendance
is not shown in
the Court proceedings. This
should be insisted, failing
which this may some times
lead to acquittal on the
grounds of non-production of
witnesses.
(12) It is the duty of