Investigation (Part 7)

Now the court says we won't interfere in investigation — I can say with confidence that if the court were allowed to interfere in investigation, no guilty person could escape, not one guilty person could escape. Now when we go and say, sir, this is the law — that the case diary, from when it started to when it ended, has been three days, nothing has happened to the accused, why should further remand be given — this is his quite valuable right — why should my body be handed over to someone? The court says, tomorrow they'll allege we weren't given time, so it reluctantly gives time, out of its own sense of accommodation. Now the police, through that same accommodation, get the court's non-interference practically eliminated too — later, because of their own incompetence, the prosecution's incompetence, the witnesses' incompetence, the accused gets acquitted, and then, sir, the public says, the court let him off — no one blames the police. We only go so far as to blame the police — the police are corrupt, the police are thugs, the police are blackmailers.

Well, go across all of Pakistan — never mind Pakistan, Punjab alone has become roughly a ten-crore province — let's say eight crore — against a total of, in my estimate, two to two-and-a-quarter lakh police officials, who are quiet, legally bound, bound by these law books — well, eight crore people, if they unite, no one can do them wrong. Here a single constable lives in some neighbourhood, and that whole neighbourhood holds its breath — bring a little awakening, a little courage, no one can do anything. Act according to law, you should bear with lawful conduct; if they act unlawfully, stand up. Believe me, if the whole nation endured these hardships for one year — that yes, we'll file complaints against this, we'll have to go to offices too — unite for one year, let every department's people know that if I do anything unlawful, this nation will come after me — the public will think ten thousand times before doing anything.

Now, when the courts take a lenient view — now the 173 report, the challan, when it's submitted, the SHO is duty-bound by law that I will present all the evidence before you on the day this challan is submitted — let me read you sub-section 5. Where the station house officer, the officer-in-charge, will present the report under sub-section 1, and along with it he will produce the witnesses — this is under Section 173 CrPC; when the challan is submitted under Section 173 CrPC, let me read you sub-section 5, where the police station in-charge sends the report under sub-section 1 — this is mandatory. Along with this report, it should be presented for the purpose of accepting [attendance of] government employees, and the magistrate will bind the witnesses to appear, and the court will fix a date for identifying [the accused] before him.

Which challan ever gets submitted like this — in eighteen years I haven't seen a single challan where the SHO presented the challan before the court and also lined up and produced the private witnesses in court, saying, sir, here is the calendar of witnesses, these are the private witnesses, count them all, I've produced all of them, and let the court bind them that whenever the trial court summons you, you must appear — I have not seen this procedure in a single case in eighteen years. What's the point of saying this? The point is: why does the prosecution file a case before the court when this requirement isn't put before it? Why does the prosecution bring disgrace upon itself, when the law says the SHO will produce all the witnesses on the day he submits the challan? The prosecution brings disgrace upon itself when we step outside this book, when we ignore the law of this book — whether it's the prosecution or the accused, they'll only bring disgrace, only suffer loss.

I told you in one lecture — look, when the term 'investigating officer' comes up, it means a person who knows the law, a person skilled in bringing out the truth, who performs a service — the notion of an expert comes to mind, that an investigation expert is a skilled man who will do all this work — and what does the investigating officer actually do? He sinks the whole case. I say this with confidence — I once filed a private complaint against accused persons in a case that the state had botched, whose accused were declared innocent, and in that private complaint I secured a death sentence. The police had botched it — case abandoned, site plan abandoned, inquiry report abandoned, had taken money — I was forced to file a private complaint, and in that private complaint, all of them were convicted, some got the death sentence, some got life imprisonment.

The purpose of telling you all this is only this — God forbid you are ever a complainant — God forbid, I say this because in a criminal case, when you suffer harm, you become the complainant — God forbid you are an accused — God forbid, and I say this because you're innocent, I'm not talking about the guilty here — you should reflect on these things, in fact you should manage the investigating officer this way. I've already given you a detailed lecture earlier — if you know these things.

Now there was a recent case, let me tell you about it — it was under 408 PPC — a clerk committed criminal breach of trust with dishonest intent, tampered with accounts, and made off with roughly fourteen to fifteen lakh rupees. The investigating officer arrested him; after arrest, during investigation, he confessed before witnesses that I can get four lakh rupees recovered, I've spent the rest — and told the complainant, take four lakh from me now and make the rest into instalments — I'm telling you the true story, I can give you the case number, the city name — this investigating officer, in the city where this case is, told the accused: 'Oh, you want to make instalments with us? We'll plaster you together right here.' The complainant said give me time to think, came back the next day, said fine — you get four lakh recovered and make the rest into instalments of fifty thousand each; he said, no, I found out I can only give one lakh. Now what does the investigating officer say? Come on, get one lakh recovered — he takes him home, brings back one lakh rupees. Now what does the recovery memo show? Twenty thousand he took out from bushes at such-and-such place and handed over.

Now ask someone, which criminal-breach-of-trust accused throws twenty thousand rupees into roadside bushes and walks off, and that twenty thousand rupees sits there for two months, since the incident happened two months earlier, and that twenty thousand rupees has been lying there for two months? Twenty thousand recovered from bushes, eighty thousand brought from his own home, and three lakh handed to the investigating officer.

Now, after investigation was complete, his bail hearing happened; the first question the judge asked: which bushes in this country, in a populated area, have twenty thousand rupees lying in them for two months without any passer-by picking it up? Did these currency notes have written on them that these were notes taken under criminal breach of trust — and there's also a case registered about it, don't touch it? Supernatural stuff — and, funnier still, let me tell you, this investigating officer took three lakh from them, and the one-lakh threat he must have issued — 'Chaudhry sahib, sit tight, we'll keep this one lakh here, we'll arrange the bail sponsorship later' — and Chaudhry sahib said, much obliged, my constable will come to you this evening — now he took fifty thousand from Chaudhry sahib too, and three lakh from the accused as well.

Now Chaudhry sahib finds out, when it came up in argument, that only twenty thousand was recovered from some bushes — Chaudhry sahib got confused, he said, oh brother, what did you do, you could have just taken it out of the bushes — Chaudhry sahib, what should I do, I recovered everything, twenty thousand — and the judge never even noticed the eighty thousand — he recovered eighty thousand, the judge never noticed the eighty, he noticed only that twenty thousand from the bushes — no sir, that was president [of the association] arranged, they got it approached through the president and got bail — how is this possible? You people need to be alert.

1. Pay attention to the inquiry report, if it's a murder case.
2. Pay attention to the recovery memos.
3. Pay attention to the site plan — does it match what the witnesses are saying, is it drawn up exactly as the complainant describes in his FIR.
4. Look at the recovery site plan — is it drawn up exactly according to the place from which recovery was made.

You should examine all these things thoroughly. I hope I've told you what I can, as far as investigation goes.