Mischiefs policemen commit in investigation
Most people, who do not know the ‘inside story‘ of the police, think that once they have registered FIR, everything will be alright. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The real secret of the police lies further ahead—in what they do in the investigation and write in the case diary.
Manipulating Case Diaries, the Ultimate Secret of Policing
In their parlance, it is called ‘shaping’ or ‘tweaking’ the investigation. The courts could force them to register an FIR. But the courts cannot force them to conduct the investigation properly or in a certain manner. The courts can comment on the investigation or find fault with them in terms of the judgment in Kishanbhai (2014) only after it is complete. So the cops have complete freedom in what they call ‘shaping the investigation’.
One can change the entire course of investigation by doing certain things or not doing certain things—such as, questioning some witnesses or not questioning them. Amongst many other techniques of ‘shaping the investigation’ are tutoring witnesses to make them say what they want them to say; creating bogus or ‘stock’ witnesses; sending something for forensic examination or not sending it all; pressurizing the doctors to tweak the post-mortem reports; ‘planting’ some fake evidence during searches and seizure; and destroying some evidence, say by hastily cremating a dead body, etc.
Old-timer crooked officers and subordinates are highly valued for this skill. Unfortunately for the police, younger officers these days are very poor at it. When they try their hands at it, they mess up things and get a dressing down from the courts. I am told that these days, these incompetent younger officers privately hire retired old-timers (even if they were just head constables) to do the job of manipulations.
The standard modus operandi of the police is to claim that they recovered the cash, and weapons etc from the possession of the accused when they were arrested. Most of the time, these items happen to be ‘planted’ by the police.
Where the law itself has failed the people?
Unfortunately for the people, the law given by the British is such that the investigating officer enjoys unfettered powers during the investigation of a cognizable offence. All the mischiefs in his investigation can be taken apart by the court during the trial. However, as long as he is writing the case diaries, no court can compel him or direct him to write or omit certain things. After the trial, he can even be got punished under Kishanbhai (2014). However, as long as the trial is not complete, he cannot be touched.
This has been the legal position since the famous judgment in the case of Khwaja Nazir Ahmed (1944) and confirmed since then in many judgments. In Mukesh Singh (2020)also, the Supreme Court reiterated that investigation of an offence is a field exclusively reserved for the police whose powers remain unfettered as long as they remain compliant with the provisions of the CrPC. As held in S. N. Sharma (1970), the High Courts or the Supreme Court can interfere only if the power of investigation is exercised mala fide.
In Kishan Pal (2006), it was held, “It is true that interference by the court at the investigation stage is not called for. However, it is equally true that the investigating agency cannot be given the latitude of protracting the conclusion of the investigation without any limit of time.” Unfortunately, there are but few instances when the courts pulled up the police for dragging on with the investigation, particularly in UAPA cases, to deny bail to the accused.
How police ‘plant’ evidence to frame people
In practically all the cases the standard modus operandi of the police is to show that when the accused was arrested, he was searched and from his possession, items like weapons, explosives, cash, wires, batteries, etc. were seized. Most of the time, such items happen to be ‘planted’ on the accused persons. Usually, there are no public witnesses as required by the law. Either it is the stock witnesses of the police or no witness at all.
The JTSA (Jamia Teachers Solidarity Association) report ‘Framed, Damned, Acquitted: Dossiers of a very ‘Special’ Cell’ cites numerous cases of Delhi Police Special Cell in which they had falsely implicated innocent Muslims under charges of terrorism. All of them were acquitted by the courts after several precious years of their lives were already lost behind bars and their businesses, family lives, social prestige and businesses, everything was destroyed.
In the State vs. Hamid Hussain et al (2010), the court had specifically questioned the prosecution as to why no effort at all was made to ensure the presence of public witnesses while effecting the alleged recovery of the pistol and cartridges; despite the area being densely populated and public witnesses being available.
In the famous Akshardham terror attack case (2014), all the six accused who were sentenced with the death penalty etc. were acquitted by the Supreme Court. The whole case is built upon the ‘planting of evidence’. The Supreme Court gave an unprecedented dressing down to the Gujarat police.
In this case, the police had also claimed that two letters written in Urdu by one of the accused were seized from the trousers of the two slain terrorists. In fact, their entire case depended on this and the confessional statements. The confessional statements were promptly retracted. The Court pointed out that even as the pockets of the trousers were seen to be perforated with bullets and smeared with dried blood 12 years later also, the letters did not have even a drop of blood, mud or perforation by the bullets. The letters were obviously ‘planted’. The Supreme Court was dismayed that such a vital point was missed by the courts below. Twelve years of their lives were destroyed.
A long list of such cases with details can be found in my book ‘State Persecution of Minorities and Underprivileged in India’.
Irregularities committed in searches
It was held in the case of Sadhu Singh (1997) that genuine attempts must be made to join the public witnesses and a stereotype statement of non-availability of public witnesses will not be sufficient particularly when at the relevant time, it was not difficult to procure the services of public witness.
However, irregularities committed during searches are extremely common. In almost all the trumped-up cases of terrorism in which Muslims or Kashmiri Muslims were falsely implicated by the Special Cell of Delhi police and which ended in acquittal years later, the courts have almost invariably found fault with searches. In most of the cases, independent witnesses were never procured and ‘stock witnesses’ of the police (that is, the same people who are always made witnesses irrespective of the police station or the place of the search, even if it is several miles away from their residences) were used.
The above amply illustrate the numerous ways in which the police abuse their powers or the law itself to harass the common man.
