After the recent cases of rape and murder, the police once again faced mounting anger. Though the culprits in the gang-rape and brutal murder of the veterinary doctor in Telangana were arrested quickly (and later killed in an encounter), the general antagonism over the working of the criminal justice system has not abated. The barbarity with which the crime was committed shook our conscience.
Unfortunately, no one came forward to extend a helping hand. Capital punishment for the offence could not instil even a speck of fear in the crime’s perpetrators. Even the newly added penal provisions to punish police officers for disobeying law did not persuade them to act promptly. The police must set its house in order before pointing fingers at others in the criminal justice system. As every encounter has to follow certain guidelines issued by the Supreme Court and the matter is sub-judice and under the NHRC’s scrutiny, my focus will be on issues that surface time and again and need to be seriously addressed.
The attitude of the police in evading registration of FIRs is not uncommon in India. Taking notice of the reports of Malimath Committee and National Police Commission, a Constitution Bench of the SC in the Lalita Kumari case (2013) said “the number of FIRs not registered is approximately equivalent to the number of FIRs actually registered”. It reiterated the legislative intent of the law and noted that the police have no discretion to refuse registration of a crime if the ‘information’ given discloses commission of a cognisable offence. Though a crime is generally registered in the police station having territorial jurisdiction of investigation, it cannot refrain from investigation merely on the ground that the offence has been committed beyond its jurisdiction. Despite the fact that no proceedings of a police officer can be questioned on this ground, complainants are shown the door and even serious offences are not taken cognisance of at times. This trend needs to be corrected.
One of the reasons for not registering cases of doubtful jurisdictions is the limited number of investigating officers and the ever-increasing work pressure in police stations. With the explosion of new forms of crime like cybercrime, this workload is further increasing. Though the SC, recently, taking suo moto cognisance of increasing crime against women under The POCSO Act, in re: Alarming rise in the number of reported child rape incidents, has asked the states not only to sensitise police officers to complete investigation in the given time-frame of two months but also to increase the number of investigating officers, the response of the states is awaited. The number of investigating officers must be sufficient to fulfil the legislative mandate of maintaining law and order. The behaviour of police officers also needs improvement through continuous training and effective supervision.
Another reason for poor registration of crime is that the increasing figures of crime are generally linked with the performance of (police) station house officers (SHOs). Though prevention of crime may suitably be rewarded,the number of crimes registered must not be the only parameter to measure the performance of SHOs. The socio-economic and psychological dynamics of crime must be taken note of. Public perception about crime situations (which obviously includes prevention, quick response and detection) and behaviour of the policemen need to be considered as the prime factors for measuring their performance.
Witness (including victim) protection is another area that needs strengthening. Though a well-structured Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, is applicable across the country, the police require additional resources to implement it effectively. A few best practices of the West may be implemented. Offenders in serious crimes on parole must be tracked using electronic collars to ensure they keep a safe distance from the victim. Recidivists must be dealt with separately to ensure they are integrated well with society on their release.
Further, a few offences can be prevented or at least their severity minimised with the use of technology. Most of the police command centres are now tech-driven. The traditional 100 number of the police is being replaced by 112 that provides integrated services of the police, ambulance and fire. The emergency response vehicles under this scheme are deployed 24x7 at various hotspots and reach the caller location quickly. This has enhanced public confidence in the police. The 112 mobile app can also be made use of by women and others in case of any emergency. Many states including Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Chhattisgarh have already launched this service on a wide scale, and other states are in the process of upgrading their control rooms. Similarly, installation of sufficient geo-tagged CCTV cameras at public places that are controlled centrally may also deter potential criminals.
Time and again, it has been observed that many who are present on the spot, instead of making efforts to prevent the crime, film videos and make them viral. Such persons must be punished. The Chhattisgarh government has amended Sections 354 (outraging modesty of women) and 376 (rape) of the CrPC and made bystanders liable for punishment if they do not prevent commission of offence and immediately inform the police. This could be implemented in all states.
Other suggestions may include strict enforcement of the law to prevent illegal sale of petrol and acids and increasing the number of women officers in the police force. Given the deep-rooted patriarchal mindsets, policing cannot be improved in isolation and on its own. The democratically elected governments must keep women’s security on the top of their agenda and do their best to strengthen our country’s criminal justice system.
R K Vij
The author is a senior IPS officer in Chhattisgarh.
Views expressed are his own
Email: vijrk@hotmail.com