RULE OF LAW IN CRIME INVESTIGATION - A DISTANT REALITY BY - S. ARRIVAZHAGUY
RULE OF LAW IN CRIME INVESTIGATION – A DISTANT
REALITY
AUTHORED BY - S. ARRIVAZHAGUY[1]
Police functioning has become complicated and
highly specialised in a globalised world. Police
are the authority to enforce the will of the state. Manifestation of rule of
law can be measured by the way the
police function, i.e. the index of liberty.
The more specific right to equality is one of the
core concept of rule of law. It essentially means
equality before law and all individuals being subjected to the same laws in the
same measure.
How for the police and the criminal justice system
enforce law in society, protect innocent citizen
and use coercive power to ensure compliance of law to ensure peace are the test
in application of rule of law.
Whether individuals are suspected of a minor
offence or a serious crime or socio economic
crime or recent increasingly pervading cyber crime, the right have to be
equally secured to everyone as guaranteed in our
Indian Constitution.
Sociologists of the criminal law believe that there
will always be some lurking threat to equal
treatment. Certain police officials who exercise some measure of
discretion at any point of time may
decide the fate of an individual. The police play an important role in
exercising discretion at pre-trial and posttrial stages.
This discretion is exercised mostly at
pre conviction stage leading to in equality in criminal investigation.
This paper attempts
to analyse the applicability of rule of law in pre and post-trial investigation in different types of criminal
cases with the aid of doctrinal method.
Introduction:
The aim and objective of The Police Act of 1891 was
to reorganise the police to make it
more efficient in the prevention and detection of crime in the society. As
years passed by, the police were
entrusted with the responsibility to maintain law and order byensuring the internal
security of the state.
Police in their duties to maintain law and order or in detection, investigation, prosecution of cases
directly deals with the public and without
public co-operation they cannot discharge their duties effectively. But the role of police is indispensible in maintaining peace in any society. But there is no equality in criminal investigation, due to the intervention of Influential public
person. In addition, sensitive criminal
cases filed against influential persons is given special attention
and priority in disposing, or else inordinate delay in such cases are viewed
seriously than in other cases. Hence they will come under special scrutiny.
Role of Police:
The sanction behind state power is the use of
force. Police are the authority to enforce the will of the state, the way the
police function is an index of liberty and The
enforcement of rule of law and liberty in any democratic society can be
measured by the way the
police function. When the police powers are abused, the weak tend to be more
oppressed. Whether it is corruption in the police
forces or indeed
in the general run of the administration, or criminalization of polity, it is always the poor,
under-privileged, weak, and disadvantage sections of society that are at the receiving
end.
Police functioning day by day has become increasingly complicated and highly specialised.
Each function requires specialization such as training, knowledge based, skill
and sophistication
which are not possible to sustain when many are centralised in the same force. In the absence of specialisation, the
police force have to depend on more
outside resources and spend time to achieve
the same results
in any given area of work.
Certain areas of functioning have to be necessarily under political control
and monitoring whereas certain
other functions have to be independent of political supervision and are in fact quasi- Judicial in nature.
Since, the functions are all clubbed in one police force, it is impossible to separate control of one function from
another. As a net result, they have been playing a very prominent role in and protector of the people.[2]
Even today, nearly half of the population is functionally illiterate. It is easy to
recognize, a few segment of the people who engaged in organised sector are socially
educationally and politically influential than the rest. More than that, employment of police is in the
state sector with colonial hangover and undue prestige and fear evoked by government, such employees wield disproportionate power in the society.[3]
Police and Minority Groups:
It is a peculiar problem that the relationship
between the police and the minority groups
based on religion, race, or language. Politicians
support the dominant majority group for
vote bank and the police being in the hands politicians, the minorities are
bound to have some real or imaginary
grievances against them. Another
factor of inequality is that the minority
groups are almost weaker in economic condition. And they are not given equal protection
by the police. The instances of real or supposed occurrences of police
atrocities on Harijans are legion.
In the like manner grievance among the muslims
during communal disturbances are quite
often pitted more against the police force rather than the other community. It is experienced
during the riots in Bhivandi, Moradabad, Meerut, Maliana and other places.[4]
The Madan commission which inquired the riots concluded that the policemen had disgraced their uniforms.
Police and Politics:
In India, discharging crime investigation without
political intervention is impossible. As criminalization of politics, and
politicization of crime have both become the order of the day, the
influence of criminals in governance of the state has increased
manifold. The election commission has recorded that more than 700 of the 4072
legislators in all the states of India have a record
of crime against them.
Such persons can wield considerable influence by
virtue of their political affiliations and
proximity to ruling party. This creates the need to bestow special attention by
the police and the Court system.
Needless to say that such cases have social ramification, because those persons in spite of their criminal
disposition can pervasively enter and influence the political and democratic process. If this situation
is allowed to remain, the fundamental right of
citizens to have a clean democratic process will be in jeopardy. It is,
therefore, necessary to keep a tab on such cases
only to ensure
that the course of justice
is not obstructed or deflected
by extraneous influences. If the accusations against such persons remain
uninvestigated or investigated in a
slip-shod manner, it gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that the police is in the grips of their influence. If the things
are left out to take their own course without
any scrutiny or monitoring at
higher levels, the criminal justice process will be disastrous and become irreparable and throw up a
challenge to the rule of law. Such situations should, therefore, be taken care of and in doing so; the authorities
concerned should not adopt any discriminatory treatment.
Politicization of crime and criminalization of
politics are the inevitable consequences of
our governance crisis. The most
important reform measure to be undertaken in the police forces is the separation of crime investigation from other
branches of policing. Several mechanisms and models have been suggested
by various committees and commissions to create
an independent wing of police force fully in-charge of crime investigation,
which should obviously be controlled
by, and be accountable to, an independent constitutional machinery devoid of political
intervention.
Rule of law in Indian Constitution:
The term ‘rule of law’ means the principles of
legality which refers to a government based
on principles of law and not of men. The expression rule of law was given
prominence by Dicey. According to him, the rule of law is one
of the cardinal principles of the English legal system.
He attributed the following three meanings to the doctrine;
1. Supremacy
of law
2. Equality
before law; and
3. Predominance
of legal sprit.[5]
Rule
of law is the fundamental principle of governance of any civilised
liberal democracy. It is the anti-thesis of arbitrariness.
Dicey’s rule of law has been adopted and incorporated
in the Indian Constitution. The rule of law has rightly been argued to be part
of the basic structure of the Indian
Constitution. The preamble itself
enunciates the ideals of justice,
liberty and equality. In part III of
the Constitution, these concepts are enshrined as fundamental rights and are made enforceable. The Constitution is supreme and all the
three organs of the government, viz,
legislature, executive and judiciary are subordinate to and have to act in accordance with it. The principle of judicial review is
embodied in the Constitution
and the subjects can approach the High Courts and the Supreme Courts for the enforcement of fundamental rights
guaranteed under the Constitution. If
the executive or the government abuses
the power vested
in it or if the action is malafide, the same can be
quashed by the ordinary courts of law.[6] The constitutional bench in G.V.K. Industries Vs ITO[7]
observed that “Our Constitution charges the various organs of the state with
affirmative responsibilities of protecting the interests of, the welfare of and the security
of the nation....
powers are granted to enable the accomplishment of
the goals of the nation. The powers of judicial review
are granted in order
to ensure that such power is being used within the bounds
specified in the Constitution. Consequently, it is imperative that the
powers so granted to various organs
of the state are not restricted impermissibly by judicial
fiat such that it leads to inabilities of the organs of the
government in discharging their constitutional responsibilities. Powers that have been granted, and
implied by, and borne by the Constitutional text have to be perforce admitted. Nevertheless, the very essence of constitutionalism is also that no organ of
the state may arrogate to itself powers beyond what is specified in the
Constitution. Walking on that razors
edge is the duty of the judiciary. Judicial restraint is necessary in dealing with the powers of another
coordinate branch of the government; but restraint cannot imply abdication of the responsibility of walking on that edge.”
No person shall be deprived of his life and
personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law[8]
or of his property save by authority of law.[9] The executive and the legislative powers of the State and the
Union have to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
The government and the public officials are not
above the law. The maxim, The King can do
no wrong does not apply in India. There is equality before the law and the
equal protection of laws.[10] The government and the public authorities
are also subject to the jurisdiction
of ordinary courts of law and for similar wrongs are to be tried and punished similarly. They are not immune from
ordinary legal process nor is any provision made regarding separate administrative courts and tribunals.[11]
In public service also the doctrine of equality
is accepted.[12]
The right to equality before the law and the equal
treatment by the law, or in other words, the
principle of non-discrimination, condition the interpretation and application
not only of human rights
law strict sense, but also of international law.
On the other hand, the principle of equality or the
prohibition of discrimination does not mean
that all distinctions are forbidden, and in this respect the Human Rights
Committee has held that differential
treatment between people or groups of people “must be based on reasonable and objective criteria”[13]
The specific right to equality before the Courts is
a fundamental principle underlying the right
to a fair trial, and can be found express verb is in Article 14 (1) of the
International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, according to which “all persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals”[14]
The principle of equality before courts means in the first place that, regardless of one’s gender, race,
origin or financial status , for instance “every person appearing before the court has the right not to be discriminated
against either in the course of the
proceedings or in the way the law is applied to the person concerned”. Further, whether individuals are suspected of a minor offence or a serious crime,
the rights have to be equally secured o everyone.
Rule of law in Criminal Justice:
Criminal justice has to
be administered with even hand and there
cannot be a different treatment for different classes of accused. The fundamental premise of the
rule of law is that every human
being, including the worst criminal, is entitled to basic human rights and due process.
Rule of law essentially means equality before law, and all individuals being subjected to the
same laws in the same measure. The
ultimate test of rule of law is the way the
police and the criminal justice system enforce law in society, protect innocent
citizen and use coercive
power to ensure compliance of law to ensure peace.
Three percent of the population are engaged in
organised sector and they are socially, educationally
and politically more influential than others.
They are the one who wield disproportionate
power in the society. When that
employment is with the police force with the
uniform as the symbol of authority and prestige the habitual use of force is
almost entirely unchecked, with hardly any instruments of accountability. This situation is further complicated by an increasingly illegitimate political and electoral system.
Illegitimate political
system is inclined to use the police force illegally to buttress itself. As the police force are still largely controlled by the political executive,
the tendency to are abuse the police force for partisan
and personal ends is irresistible in an otherwise
immature polity. [15]
The judiciary is a co-equal branch of the
government within India’s democratic and constitutional
framework, along with the legislature and executive. The role of courts in society
is not merely to adjudicate disputes between parties, but also to protect the
rights and liberty of individuals.
This is especially important in criminal matters, where an individual is pitted
against the might of the state.[16]
The rule of law cannot exist without an effective
judicial system, which is capable of enforcing rights in a timely and proportionate
manner in a way that inspires
public confidence in the administration of justice.
Criminal justice as a lengthy
process that starts with the initial legislative criminalization of certain
act, and continues
through a series of stages that include
investigation, arrest,
pre-trial, trial, sentencing and service of sentence.
We can describe this process as a chain of ten decision points:
1. Legislative
criminalization
2. Investigation
3. Arrest
4. Detention
5. Charging
6. Pre-trial
7. Trail
8. Sentencing
9. Infliction
of punishment
10. Termination
of punishment
At any point, in
a given case, if some officials or group of officials exercise some measure of discretion, it may decide the
fate of an individual. It is evident
that any of these officials may
exercise their discretion in a biased or in egalitarian manner. Legislators may produce statutes that, while facially
neutral, have disparate
impact; investigators may make
biased decisions; arresting officers may make biased decisions; and so may
prosecutors, judges and on down the
line. Punishment is not the only
point at which inequalities may occur. wherever, official discretion appears,
there is threat to equal treatment, and equality before law becomes
a distant reality.
Moreover the
process of criminal justice is a hydraulic system said by specialists and the efforts to control discretion at any
one point in the criminal process may simply displace the exercise of discretion to another point. For example
shifting discretion from judges to prosecutors[17] It is for this reason that many critics
have viewed the determinate sentencing movement as a thoroughly naïve effort to guarantee equality
in the criminal law.
Sociologists of the criminal law believe it as an
insolvable problem. There will always be discretion somewhere in the
system, which means that there will always be some lurking threat to equal treatment. It is simply practical impossibility to
police the discretion of all potentially biased officials at work at all the stages of the criminal
law process.[18]
It may seem obvious that justice in the criminal
law must mean equal treatment of offences. Should not a given offence
receive the same punishment
every time it is committed. We should judge people for what
they have done, not for who they are.
Different offenders are the products of different
life histories. Some, to take the simplest and most familiar contract, are
the children of privilege and some the children of deprivation. Some are
more dangerous than others. These
sorts of concerns have always led criminal
justice officials to seek means of individualizing – means of taking into
account the myriad differences that
seem to distinguish one individual offender from another. Late nineteenth century
insisted on the necessity of individualization.[19]
Now of course one could simply declare that any
official who takes into account such individual
differences has made a mistake. If we wish to achieve equality before the
criminal law, the question we must
ask is thus not how to eliminate official discretion. Instead, we must ask
which kind of discretion as exercised by which officials, presents which kind
of dangers. We must also ask which efforts to control which kind of
discretion entail which consequences and costs.
It is also equally important to distinguish the
stage at which the discretion is used and it leads to inequality in criminal investigation. We have seen that the
discretion is everywhere at any
decision points of procuring criminal
justice. For easy understanding we may divide
the decision points into two stages i.e., pre-trial and post- trial. It is noteworthy to state that the dominant role of police mainly occurs
at the stages of pre conviction. It
covers the decision points such as
criminalisation, investigation, arrest, detention and charging and it Simply crosses over the stages from filling
FIR to pre- trial stage.
The Role of Police
in Pre – Trial Equality:
Criminal investigation commences when the police
come to know of the commission of a
crime. Police enjoy unbridled power
in the matter of investigation. The
power to investigate conferred under
Sec 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not necessarily flow from judgment of FIR prescribed under
Sec. 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the police
officer is entitled
to undertake investigation from information received.
The investigation of criminal case is completely
under the domain of the police and the
learned Magistrate has no power or authority or jurisdiction under the code of
criminal procedure to direct the
investigating officer to investigate any case in a particular way including giving direction to the
Investigating officer to take step for recording the statement afresh
at the stages of investigation.[20]
Investigation of an offence is the field exclusively
reserved for the Police officers whose powers in that field are unfettered as long
as the power to investigate into the cognizable
offence is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions
falling under chapter XII of the Code
and the courts are not justified in obliterating the track of investigation when the
investigating agencies are well within their legal bound.[21]
Indeed a noticeable feature of the
scheme under Chapter XIV of the Code is that a Magistrate is kept in
the picture at all stages of the police investigation but he is not authorised
to interfere with the actual
investigation or to direct the police how the investigation is to be conducted[22]. But if a investigating officer
improperly and illegally
exercised his power to breach the provisions causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty and property
of the citizen, then the court on being approached by the aggrieved
person, has to consider the nature and extent of the breach
and pass appropriate orders.
Now we consider the powers of police regarding
arrest. Investigating officers possess the
authority to arrest without warrant. No
discrimination is available to an investigation officer so as not to arrest one accused or suspect in one case
and arrest another accused or suspect
in another case. The words “if
necessary” in Sec. 157 may at best make available a discretion to an investigating officer in a given case to defer
arresting an accused or suspect if
there is reasonable doubt about his identity.
It is not possible to subscribe to the view that the words “arrest is made discretionary”[23]
Arrest is not a must in every cognizable case. It is the discretion of the police officer to arrest or not to arrest,
and the discretion cannot be an arbitrary
one but must be guided by the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar
Case.[24]
The next stage of arrest is detention or the
custody. A police officer has powers
to take any person into custody
without a warrant. Sec 34 of the
Police Act empowers the police to impose fine that can be extents
to Rs. 50/- and imprisonment for eight days, whereas under section 510 of Indian Penal Code the fine upto Rs.10/-
and the maximum imprisonment can be of 24 hour. In fact, If it is a non-cognizable offence
and the police has no power to
arrest without a warrant. In other words while arresting a person for an offence it is the duty of the police
to ask the person concerned to furnish security.
The paragraphs
deal about pre conviction stage reveals that police have unbridled power in crime investigation.
Investigation of offences under the provisions of Cr. P.C. is the exclusive domain of the police, the
Judicial Magistrate should have limited role to play to counter the moves of persons in influential positions to subvert
the effective process of investigation.
If police treats different public persons in different way by exhibiting favour
to one and hatred towards other, it attracts discrimination. Any differential treatment would attract
the wrath of Article 14. There shall be uniform
application of criminal
law irrespective of the status of the accused. The investigation is not being done swiftly
at the instance of such influential
public men or they are resorting to dilatory or intimidatory acts. Rule of law prohibits discrimination. When the power given to them are
misused or abused it is against the
rule of law. In a democratic society every public functionary is merely a
public servant whose primary duty is to discharge the functions entrusted to him without bias and to promote
public good. However, a society in which abuse of power is the norm, it is vital to institute effective safeguards against
such abuse of public office. Particularly
it is necessary to have effective checks
in relation to the functioning of the police.
An important check in case of crime investigation
is that all charge sheets are filed only
upon the independent prosecutors’ clearance.
Similarly no case shall be dropped or
closed without a directive from the independent prosecutor with
appropriate institutional checks
within the prosecution wing. The most
despicable acts of the police are brutal torture of persons detained
leading to custodial deaths.
In Sunil Batra Vs. Delhi administration,[25] the supreme court didnot find itself handicapped by the absence of any specific
provision against torture in the constitution and gathered support from Articles 14 nd 19 in holding against the
permissinbility of torture vis- avis
a persons suspected and accused of such crime. All this not with standing, the
use of third-degree methods by the
police continues unabated as should be
evident from some of the cases heard
by the supreme court. In Raghbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana,[26]
where the violence employed by the
police to extract a confession resulted in the death of a person suspected of theft, the court observed,
“The State, at the highest administrative and political levels, we hope, will organise special strategies to prevent and
punish brutality by police methodology. Otherwise the credibility of rule of
law in our republic vis – a vis the people of the country will deteriorate.” In Kishore
Singh Ravinder Dev Vs. State of Rajasthan,[27]
The Supreme Court observed
that, “Article 21, with its profound concern for life and limb, will become dysfunctional unless the agencies of the law in the
police and prison establishments have sympathy
for the humanist creed of that Article.”
All such cases irrespective of the wing in which they are detected,
should be entrusted to the prosecution wing. All custodial deaths should be
investigated by a special cell directly
reporting to the judicial head of
the prosecution wing. Only when such independent and impartial quasi-judicial
mechanisms are in place can confidence in police functioning be resorted.
Post – Trial Equality:
It is needless to say about the role of police in
post -conviction stage, because the steps involved
in post- conviction are sentencing, imprisonment of punishment and termination of punishment and further
the role of police is not much important and their discretion is not at all possible at this stage. The only area
where the Police could either use or
abuse their power in post -conviction
stage is prison administration. It is prevalent that prison is a place where innocent under trial prisoner become notorious person. This is because of the friendship developed by
them with habitual criminals inside the prison. The Police officials too allow the criminals to interact among
themselves by violating Law and ignoring their duty towards
the society.
Recently, there was a flutter that Tmt. Sasikala a
close aid of late J. Jayalalitha, Chief Minister
of Tamil Nadu who was convicted by the Supreme Court in Disproportionate asset case and lodged in jail in Karnataka was
given special treatment inside the jail. Similarly prison officials of Puducherry were
suspended for allowing Ezhilarasi, accused of several murder cases to meet with murder Manikandan, another murder
accused to sort out plan to eliminate
her rivals.
This type of special treatment enjoyed by the
politically influenced criminals, paves way
to use the prison as a place for
planning to commit a new crime. Thus
implementation of rule of law inside
the prison becomes a distant reality. In
India the role of police in maintaining
harmony in the society is in a mess.
Hence the prosecutors and the judges
at this stage are in a position to exercise their discretion thus
upholding justice to the common man.In
certain cases involving large scale financial loss or those which are highly
sensitive, special courts are set up for speedy
trial.
Special Courts are set up quite often in cases involving large scale financial scams and diversion of public funds by those in
public offices or corporate management. Similarly cases connected to terrorism are tried by
special courts. But, any blanket
direction to set up Special Courts
wherever influential public personalities holding high offices are involved ought to be avoided, especially when
viewed from the point of Article 14 of
our Indian constitution. Special and
extra-ordinary situations should be present, apart from the accused being in
an influential position
in public life.[28]
It is noteworthy to mention the quoting of Justice Krishna Iyer, in Re Spl. Courts Bill, 1978[29]
and Ganesh Narayan vs. S. Bangarappa[30]
“Courts are less to blame than the Code made by Parliament for dawdling and Government are guilty of denying or delaying basic amenities for the judiciary to function smoothly.
Justice is a Cinderella in our scheme. Even so,
leaving V.V.I.P. accused to be dealt with by the routinely procrastinating
legal process is to surrender to
interminable delays as an inevitable evil. Therefore, we should not be cynical about absolute procedural equality and
must be creative in innovating procedures compelled by special situations”. The
constitutional validity of that Article 143 i.e., the legality of setting up of Special Courts to
investigate the offences committed by persons who held high public or political
offices was substantially upheld.[31]
It is trite that expeditious investigation of
offences and trial is a facet of rule of law
and a component of Article 21 of the Constitution. The society at large
has legitimate interest that the
persons accused of serious crimes should be proceeded against with promptness
and expedition and the process should
not get tainted by undesirable or extra-legal practices. Further, viewed from the point of view of the accused, speedy
trial is a fundamental right under
Article 21. Only for achieving these objectives, it does not matter who the
accused is, whether he is an important person or a common man. Public interest
demands that investigation, prosecution and trial ought
not to be allowed to drag on for years together. The bottlenecks coming in the way of prompt investigation and
speedy trial should be removed. Special
Courts for the so-called influential persons cannot be constituted without
reference to nature of offences or
class of offences as it would be against the basic principles of criminal justice.
Conclusion.
The police force of a country cannot be very
different from the rest of the society. Police
in India may be corrupt to some extent; it may be brutal and inefficient also.
We could see the brutality of police
power in Salwa Judam case (2011)[32]
and also in Gou rakhshas. In this
the Supreme Court held that the primordial value is that it is the
responsibility of every organ of the
State to function within the four corners of constitutional responsibility. This is
the ultimate rule of law. Some of the policemen may be rude but then
politeness is not a very common
phenomenon in other areas of life either. What
is therefore need is a positive and sympathetic
attitude towards the police and their problems. One positive record we should keep in mind is the report released
by the Rule of law index, the U.S. based World Justice project[33]
which analyses 102 counties worldwide. According
to this, India’s performance for criminal justice places it at 44 rank globally, Number 1 in South Asia and number 4
among lower middle income countries. Police encounters have become one of the
common factor which contribute to our
low rank on ‘rule of law index’. However, India did comparatively better in peoples’
minds in terms of government freedom.[34]
Police should function
independent of political executive and insulated from peer pressure. In
the interest of public, our police force certainly
requires to be reformed and improved to ensure
rule of law. However mere tinkering
is of no use. Serious and far reaching institutional changes based on sound principles alone can ensure that the police will function as public servants.
[1] Guest faculty, Government Law College, Viluppuram, Tamil Nadu
[2] law commissionofindia.nic.in/reports/report239.pdf
[3] http.academic.ouc.com/jla/
[4] The same tragedy has been repeated in communal riots
in the wake of the Ayodhya problem which rocked the towns of Aligarh and Bijnor during December-January 1990-91.
In fact, the general Muslim opinion against
the PAC[provincial Armed Constabulary] has never been more bitter before
and a demand has been made to abolish the force. (also available at Ahmad Siddique, Criminology, Eastern Book Company, Fifth Edition)
[5] Administrative Law, Upathyay
[6] C.K.Thakkar , Administrative Law, EBC.
[7] (2011)4 SCC 36
[8] Art.21
[9] Art. 300-A
[10] Art. 14
[11] It may, however, be noted here
that by the Constitution (42nd Amendment ) Act, 1976, Parliament was empowered
under Part XIV –A (Art.
323-A and 323-B) to set
up various administrative tribunals for dealing with subjects ranging from disputes of
government servants to foreign exchange and production and distribution of foodstuffs and other
essential commodities; (C.K. Thakkar, Administrative Law, EBC, 2nd
edition)
[12] Art. 16
[13] Waldmar Vs. Canada
[14] Art. 5(a) of the 1996 International Convention on the Elimination of All racial Forms of Discrimination.
[15]
Ap.loksatta.org/documents/advocacy/policing.pdf. Dr.Jayaprakash Narayan, Policy
in India – Challenges of the future.
[16] Chapter 6:
The right to fair trail:
Part I – From investigation to trail.
[17] https:// academic.oup.com/jla/article
[18] http://
academic,oup.com//jla/article
[19] http:// academic,oup.com//jla/article
[20] Indrajit Mukerjee vs State of West
Bengal and others 1995 CrLJ 3250 at p3252
[21] P. Venkatesh’s Police Diaries,
Premier publishing company, 3rd edition, p.176
[22] Ibid.,p. 187-188
[23] Dr.VinodNarainVs.State of U.P. and others, 1996 Cr.LJ 1309 at pp 1343-1344
[24] 1994 Cr.LJ. 1981
[25] (1978)4 SCC 494
[26] (1980)3 SCC 70, 71, 72
[27] (1981)1 SCC 503, 505
[28] Supra Note. 2.
[29] 1979 (1) scc
[30] (1995) 4 SCC 41
[31] Lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/report239.pdf
[32] Nandini Sunder Vs. State of Chattisgarh
[33] The project analyses whether
the criminal investigation and adjudication system
is effective, whether
it was impartial and free of corruptions and whether the rights of he accused
were protected.