Investigation (Part 5)

I gave earlier lectures on investigation, and there were quite a few follow-up queries after that. Let me make one thing clear: every case has its own facts and circumstances, but the basic procedure, the basic pattern, is the same for everyone. Continuing from where I left off in that lecture — during investigation, when an accused is arrested, and after arrest he is on physical remand with the police, there is a procedure up to the point of taking that physical remand that every police officer, every investigating officer, must complete. If he does not complete that process, courts are compelled to think that the other party, or the accused himself, may say: before this arrest I was already in his unlawful custody.

The entire arrest procedure must be followed and recorded — how did this officer get information about the accused, when did he get it, on what day; where was this police officer at that time; after that, from where did he arrest him; after arresting him, at what time did he bring him to the police station — because the police station keeps a roznamcha, a diary; the roznamcha records the entry of anyone entering the police station, and the exit of anyone leaving; even down to a sweeper coming in the morning to clean, the roznamcha records that so-and-so sweeper arrived at the station at such a time, logged his presence.

Now when that policeman comes into the station, he'll go straight to the moharrar, the one who has custody of the roznamcha, who is responsible for maintaining that register. He'll go to the moharrar and give all the detail — that I arrested this accused from such-and-such place, on the information of such-and-such informer, or on such-and-such person's pointing him out, or such-and-such person had him in custody and I took custody from him — whatever the situation, he will enter that arrest factor into that roznamcha.

Now, as soon as it's entered in the roznamcha, the twenty-four-hour clock starts from that moment. Now the law becomes active — that within these twenty-four hours, this arrested accused must be produced before a magistrate, and if, before those twenty-four hours are up, they conclude there is no evidence on record justifying his continued arrest, they will release him under 169, taking his personal surety bond, and put his arrest in abeyance. So that's the arrest process. If investigation is not complete within twenty-four hours, he will be produced before the magistrate, and the full twenty-four-hour proceedings will be reported. What is the purpose of reporting the proceedings — his body is needed, and he will get it.

I've already given you a whole detailed lecture on remand, I won't repeat it. Now the most important element, from arrest through the remand process, and after remand is complete, after physical remand is complete, his going to judicial [custody] — is the recovery of incriminating material from the accused's custody, on the accused's pointing-out, based on the accused's disclosure. Now if an accused says that I can [produce] such-and-such item, which is incriminating material in this case, which could benefit the prosecution, which is useful to prove the prosecution's position correct —

Suppose a murder has occurred, shots fired from a pistol, and it's alleged that he fired the pistol at the deceased — he's on physical remand, he says, I can get the murder weapon recovered. Now keep one thing in mind: the more natural an investigation is, the more the mind will accept it, the more the court will trust it; the more unnatural it is, the less the court will trust it. News comes — the murder accused was acquitted, the accused of such-and-such offence was acquitted, the court acquitted the accused of such-and-such offence.

It's just like in some era people had to listen to the angel Azrael taking a soul — no one said, sir, Azrael took the soul away; then illnesses came, and people started saying he died of fever, he died of this, he died of that. Now when news goes out to the public that the court acquitted an accused of two murders, the public is the ordinary person — the public doesn't know — the impression that goes out among the public is that the courts are either incompetent, or were approached, accepted a recommendation, or took a bribe and let him off — that's what goes into an ordinary person's mind. But today I'm telling you that courts do not acquit any criminal. It's the prosecution that gets an accused acquitted from the courts. What does the prosecution consist of — it includes the complainant, it includes the witnesses, it includes the investigating officer. In reality, it's the prosecution, collectively, that gets an accused acquitted from the court.

If the FIR is registered naturally, the accused's arrest happens naturally, his investigation happens naturally, he'll be found guilty naturally — no court will let him off. Now what does 'natural' mean here? It means what actually happened. There's a common notion floating around that conspiracy accused get acquitted — that Zaid and Bakar conspired that we must kill A, and, under that conspiracy, gave B and C weapons, and they went and killed him. Now it's generally assumed that a witness to the conspiracy shouldn't lead to conviction. Why? Because the evidence presented against them is unnatural.

That clumsy story — sir, tell me this, we are enemies, you're sitting in your sitting-room plotting to kill me — how could I have access to that sitting-room where my enemies are sitting? He's a member of my gang — the accused know that this is a rival gang's man — could he possibly have access to their sitting-room, their den, their room, their house, to go and listen in on the accused plotting this conspiracy? It's unnatural — these are flaws in the investigation on the basis of which all this happens.

On a single question that witness is finished — sir, did you know the accused beforehand? Yes, I knew them — because they've stated their names, they'll have said, yes, I know them, are you connected to the complainant's party? Yes, definitely, connected to the complainant's party, and there is enmity going on between the complainant's party and the accused? Yes, it's ongoing — well, why would they conspire in front of you? Why would they conspire in front of you, if they already knew all this — because evidence gets fabricated in an unnatural way. Whenever evidence is fabricated unnaturally, are courts robots? Are courts mathematicians who see 2+2=4? No, the court too consists of flesh-and-blood human beings.

The person presiding over the court is someone with ordinary intelligence, understanding, and discernment — the laws are within his purview, but he uses those laws according to his own intelligence and discernment. When such unnatural evidence is placed before him, only a judge with an unnatural mindset would convict on it. A judge with intelligence, understanding, and discernment will not convict someone relying on such testimony. Then you hear, sir, that when the prosecution presents this kind of evidence, you then hear that the accused of two murders, three murders, this fraud, that thing, got acquitted. So, you know who your enmity is with, you know one person came, fired shots, fired ten shots, fired ten shots and left. Now if you implicate ten people in these ten shots, when you implicate ten people in ten shots, then the evidence becomes doubtful.

If, naturally, what actually happened — you were not an eyewitness, you receive information that your brother has been shot at such-and-such place, you go there immediately, you immediately learn, sir, that Zaid came on a motorcycle, fired shots, and left. Now if you implicate Zaid's whole family in it, then in the end Zaid too will be acquitted, if instead you keep it limited to Zaid alone. You have this doubt, don't you — that there's no evidence here that, sir, we were sitting in our area, we found out, we came and found out that they'd left — you have this doubt, your elders who teach you say, sir, this is the whole procedure — sir, in murder-enmity cases, no natural witness is willing to give testimony.