Committee on Reforms of

Criminal Justice System

Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs

Report

VOLUME I

INDIA

March 2003

Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System

Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs

CHAIRMAN

Dr. Justice V.S. Malimath

Formerly, Chief Justice of Karnataka and Kerala High Courts

Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal

Member, National Human Rights Commission

Bangalore 560 052

MEMBERS

S. Varadachary, IAS, (Retd.)

Bangalore 560 076

Amitabh Gupta, IPS, (Retd.)

Formerly, Director General of Police, RAjasthan

Jaipur 302 015

Prof. (Dr.) N.R. Madhava Menon

Vice-Chancellor

West Bengal National University Of Juridical Sciences

Kolkatta 700 098

D.V. Subba Rao

Advocate

Chairman, Bar Council of India

Vishakhapatnam

MEMBER –SECRETARY

Durgadas Gupta

Joint Secretary

Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India

New Delhi 110 011

STAFF OF THE COMMITTEE

Sri C.M. Basavarya

Formerly, District & Sessions Judge,

Registrar & Director of Training,

High Court of Karnataka.

Bangalore 560 094.                                                                    Executive Director

Sri K. Girither

Inspector

Central Reserve Police Force                                                     Personal Assistant

Smt Binnu Menon

Sub Inspector

Central Reserve Police Force                                                     Stenographer

Sri S.M. Reddy

Asst. Sub-Inspector

Central Reserve Police Force                                                     Clerk

Sri V. Raja

Constable

Central Reserve Police Force                                                     Office Attender

Sri M.K. Uthaiah

Constable

Central Reserve Police Force                                                     Office Attender

Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System

(Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs)

12/A Diagonal Road

Vasanthanagar

Bangalore 560 052

“Everything has been said already, but as no one listens,

we must always begin again.”

Andre Gide

French thinker and writer

CONTENTS

PART – I

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

1. Need for Reform of the Criminal Justice System 3

2. Adversarial System 23

3. Right to Silence 39

4. Rights of the Accused 59

5. Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof 65

6. Justice to Victims 75

PART – II

INVESTIGATION

7. Investigation 87

PROSECUTION

8. Prosecution 125

PART – III

JUDICIARY

9. Courts and Judges 133

10. Trial Procedure 145

11. Witness and Perjury 151

12. Vacation for Court 157

13. Arrears Eradication Scheme 163

PART – IV

CRIME & PUNISHMENT

14. Offences, Sentences, Sentencing & Compounding 169

15. Reclassification of Offences 181

16. Offences against Women 189

17. Organised Crime 195

18. Federal Law and Crimes 207

19. Terrorism 213

20. Economic Crimes 233

PART –V

LOOKING AHEAD

21. Emerging Role of the Legal Profession 249

22. Training – A Strategy for Reform 253

23. Vision for Better Criminal Justice System 259

PART –VI

RECOMMENDATIONS

24. Recommendations 265

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The nation is grateful to Sri. L.K. Advani, Deputy Prime Minister and Home

Minister, for his vision for comprehensive reforms of the entire Criminal Justice

System including the fundamental principles and the relevant laws. Hitherto,

efforts were made to reform only certain set of laws, or one particular

functionary of the system in piecemeal. This type of compartmental

examination missed the vital focus on justice to victims and national concern

for peace and security. The commitment made by him and his distinguished

colleague Sri. Arun Jaitley, Minister for Law and Justice, to implement the

reforms, once the Committee makes its recommendations, is a fitting answer to

the cynics that the Report on Reforms of Criminal Justice System will be one

more addition to the several earlier reports that are gathering dust in the

Archives of the Government.

The Committee is beholden to the then Chief Justice of India, Dr. A.S. Anand,

for calling upon all the High Courts to provide all information and assistance

the Committee needs. Our grateful thanks to former Chief Justice Sri. B.N.

Kirpal for ensuring that all the High Courts send the reports sought by the

Committee on the State of Health of Criminal Justice in their respective States.

The Committee is grateful to Sri Justice V.N. Khare, the Chief Justice of India

for avincing keen interest in the Committee’s work.

Justice P.V. Reddy, Judge Supreme Court, the then Chief Justice of Karnataka

High Court, placed at the disposal of the Committee, the building for housing

the Committee’s office in Bangalore. The Committee is grateful to him.

The Committee is grateful to all the State Governments, High Courts, Officers

of the Police Departments, Prosecution Department, Law Departments and

Home Department.

Our sincere thanks to the Bar Association of India, New Delhi, the Indira

Gandhi Institute of Development Research at Mumbai and Asian College of

Journalism, The Hindu in Chennai for collaborating with our Committee in

organising seminars on different topics and to the National Law Universities at

Bangalore and Kolkatta for rendering whatever assistance the Committee

needed from time to time. Our thanks to Sri. Shivcharan Mathur, former Chief

Minister Rajasthan, Sri. Justice N.L. Tibrewal, former Chief Justice of

Rajasthan, Justice Dave, Sri. Rajendrashekhar, former Director CBI and DGP

Rajasthan, Sri. K.P.S. Gill, former DGP Punjab and Assam, Sri. Rajath Sharma,

Media personality and Prof. P.D. Sharma for assisting the Committee in

organising the seminar at Jaipur.

Our sincere thanks to Chief Ministers, Ministers, Judges--- present and

former, distinguished lawyers, Police Officers, media personalities, politicians,

social scientists, institutions and organisations and NGOs who have assisted the

Committee in organising or participating in seminars, group discussions or

meetings.

A word of special gratitude to the respected Dr. R. Venkataraman, former

President of India, Sri. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, Vice-President of India,

Former Chief Justices Ranganath Misra, Ahmadi and Kania, Justice Jagannatha

Rao, Chairman, Law Commission of India, Justice Jayachandra Reddy,

Chairman Press Council of India, Justice K.T.Thomas, Sri. Soli Sorabjee,

Attorney General for India, Sri. Fali Nariman, President, Bar Association of

India, Senior Counsel Dr. L.M. Singhvi, Sri. Venugopal, Sri. Shanti Bhushan,

Sri. Dipankumar Gupta, Sri. V.R. Reddi, Sri. K.N. Bhat, Sri. C. S.

Vaidyanathan, Sri Lalit Bhasin, Lord Goldsmith, Attorney General of England,

Sri Badri Bahadur Karki, Attorney General of Nepal and experts from USA,

Judge Kevin Burke, Mr. Robert Litt, Mr. Ranganath Manthripragada, Ms.

Dianne Post from the USA and Mme Maryvonne Callebotte, Mr.Jean Luis

Nadal, Mr.Roussin, Mme. Claude Nocquet and Mr. Lothion from France.

The Committee appreciates the helpful gesture of the Governments of USA,

France and UK in inviting the Committee to visit their States to acquaint the

Committee with the functioning of their respective Criminal Justice Systems

and the reforms they are undertaking. The Committee could not go to USA ad

UK for want of time. The Chairman and Sri. D.V. Subba Rao could visit

France. Our grateful thanks to USAID for bringing in four experts to Delhi to

brief the Committee about the American System.

The Committee would like to record its deep sense of appreciation for the

excellent dedicated service of Sri. C.M. Basavarya rendered as Executive

Director of the Committee.

The Committee is thankful to the Director General of CRPF for lending the

staff consisting of Inspector K. Girither, Sub-Inspectors Binnu Menon and G.

Yamini Rekha, Asst. Sub Inspector S.M. Reddy, Constables V. Raja and M.K.

Uthaiah to work for the Committee. The Committee records its appreciation and

conveys its thanks to each one of them for excellent service and help to the

Committee to complete its task on schedule.

PART – I

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

NEED FOR REFORM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM _

“Law should not sit limply, while those who defy it go free and those

who seek its protection lose hope”. (Jennison v. Baker (1972) 1 All ER 997).

COMMITTEE AND ITS WORK

1.1. The Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System was

constituted by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs by its order

dated 24 November 2000, to consider measures for revamping the Criminal

Justice System. (Annexure-1). The terms of reference for the Committee are:

i. To examine the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence,

including the constitutional provisions relating to criminal jurisprudence

and see if any modifications or amendments are required thereto;

ii. To examine in the light of findings on fundamental principles and aspects

of criminal jurisprudence as to whether there is a need to re-write the Code

of Criminal Procedure, the Indian Penal Code and the Indian Evidence Act

to bring them in tune with the demand of the times and in harmony with

the aspirations of the people of India;

iii. To make specific recommendations on simplifying judicial procedures and

practices and making the delivery of justice to the common man closer,

faster, uncomplicated and inexpensive;

iv. To suggest ways and means of developing such synergy among the

judiciary, the Prosecution and the Police as restores the confidence of the

common man in the Criminal Justice System by protecting the innocent

and the victim and by punishing unsparingly the guilty and the criminal;

v. To suggest sound system of managing, on professional lines, the pendency

of cases at investigation and trial stages and making the Police, the

Prosecution and the Judiciary accountable for delays in their respective

domains;

vi. To examine the feasibility of introducing the concept of “Federal Crime”

which can be put on List I in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.

1.2. The Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Justice

V.S.Malimath, former Chief Justice of Karnataka and Kerala High Courts,

Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal and Member of the Human Rights

Commission. The other members of the Committee are Sri S. Varadachary,

IAS (Retd), former Advisor, Planning Commission of India and Sri Amitabh

Gupta, former Director General of Police, Rajasthan. Sri Durgadas Gupta, Joint

Secretary (Judicial), Ministry of Home Affairs was made the Secretary. On the

recommendation of the Committee Justice Sri T.S. Arunachalam, former Judge

of Madras High Court and Prof. N.R.Madhava Menon, Vice-Chancellor, West

Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences were co-opted. Later, Justice

Sri. T.S.Arunachalam tendered his resignation on personal grounds where-upon

Sri D.V.Subba Rao, Advocate who also happens to be Chairman of the Bar

Council of India was co-opted in his place. Sri Durgadas Gupta, Secretary of

the Committee was made the Member Secretary of the Committee. Sri

C.M.Basavarya, former District Judge and Registrar of the Karnataka High

Court was appointed as Executive Director so that the Committee has the

benefit of trial court experience in criminal matters. The term of the Committee,

which was six months from the date of its first sitting, has been extended till 31

March 2003. Thus it may be noted that there is a wholesome combination of

expertise of all the relevant fields --- the Judiciary, the Bar, the Police, the legal

academic and administrator.

1.3. The notification constituting the Committee does not expressly state the

reasons for constituting the Committee, obviously for the reason that they are

too well-known. The statement in the notification that the Committee has been

constituted “to consider measures for revamping the Criminal Justice System”

implies that the Criminal Justice System is in such a very bad state as to call for

revamping. A former Chief Justice of India warned about a decade ago that the

Criminal Justice System in India was about to collapse.

It is common knowledge that the two major problems besieging the Criminal Justice System are huge pendency of criminal cases and the inordinate delay in disposal of criminal cases on the one hand and the very low rate of conviction in cases involving serious crimes on the other.

This has encouraged crime. Violent and organised crimes have become the order of the day. As chances of convictions are remote, crime has become a profitable business. Life has become unsafe and people live in constant fear. Law and order situation has deteriorated and the citizens have lost confidence in the Criminal Justice System.

1.4. The ultimate aim of criminal law is protection of right to personal

liberty against invasion by others – protection of the weak against the strong

law abiding against lawless, peaceful against the violent. To protect the rights

of the citizens, the State prescribes the rules of conduct, sanctions for their

violation, machinery to enforce sanctions and procedure to protect that

machinery. It is utter selfishness, greed and intolerance that lead to deprivation

of life, liberty and property of other citizens requiring the State to step in for

protection of the citizens’ rights. James Madison writes in his book The

Federalist that “if men were angels no government would be necessary”. It is

the primary function of the government to protect the basic rights to life and

property. The State has to give protection to persons against lawlessness,

disorderly behaviour, violent acts and fraudulent deeds of others. Liberty

cannot exist without protection of the basic rights of the citizens by the

Government.

1.5. This is the first time that the State has constituted such a Committee for

a thorough and comprehensive review of the entire Criminal Justice System so

that necessary and effective systematic reforms can be made to improve the

health of the system. Prison administration is one of the functionaries of the

Criminal Justice System. However, it does not fall within the mandate of the

Committee. All the earlier initiatives were of a limited character to bring about

reforms in the relevant laws, substantive and procedural laws, judicial reforms

or police reforms. The Committee is required to take into account the

recommendations made by the Law Commission of India, the Conference of

Chief Ministers on Internal Security, the Report of Task Force on Internal

security and Padmanabhaiah Committee Report on Police Reforms.

1.6. The terms of reference are very wide and comprehensive. They require

the Committee to examine the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence

and relevant constitutional provisions and to suggest if any modifications or

amendments are needed. If, on such review the Committee finds that any

amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Indian Penal Code or the

Indian Evidence Act are necessary to bring them in tune with the demands of

time and the aspirations of the people, it can make necessary recommendations.

The Committee is not called upon to take up a general review of all these three

statutes. The mandate of the Committee is limited to recommending only such

amendments to these statutes as may be necessary in the light of its findings on

review of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence. Therefore, the

Committee has not undertaken any general review of these Statutes.

1.7. The well recognised fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence

are ‘presumption of innocence and right to silence of the accused’, ‘burden of

proof on the Prosecution’ and the ‘right to fair trial’. Examination of

‘Adversarial System’ followed in India being an aspect of the concept of ‘fair

trial’ falls within the purview of the Committee. Simplifying judicial

procedures and practices, bringing about synergy among the judiciary, the Prosecution and Police, making the system simpler, faster, cheaper and people-friendly, and restoring the confidence of the common man are the other responsibilities of the Committee. This includes improving the investigation and trial procedures on professional lines for expeditious dispensation of justice and making the functionaries accountable. The Committee is also required to examine if the concept of ‘Federal Crimes’, can be put in List 1 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution so that it becomes the exclusive responsibility of the Central

Government.

STRATEGIES ADOPTED BY THE COMMITTEE

1.8. Realizing the importance and magnitude of the task, the Committee

decided to reach out to every section of the society, which has a stake in the

system, directly or indirectly. Accordingly the Committee decided to: -

(1) Prepare a questionnaire and obtain responses from all walks of society.

(2) Organize seminars on important issues in different parts of the country.

(3) Participate in seminars or meetings organised by others.

(4) Meet citizens from different States hailing from different walks of life.

(5) Obtain the views of the State Governments.

(6) Obtain the views of the High Courts and the Judges.

(7) Obtain the views of Central and State Bar Councils and members of the

Bar.

(8) Seek the views of Attorney General and Advocate Generals of the

States.

(9) Obtain the views of the Heads of Police Departments.

(10) Obtain the views of the Heads of Prosecution Departments.

(11) Obtain the views of the Forensic Scientists.

(12) Obtain the views of the academics in law.

(13) Obtain the views of the media persons.

(14) Get research done by scholars on important topics.

 (15) Study the relevant reports of the Law Commission of India, Report of

Dharmavira Committee, Report of Padmanabhaiah Committee, Report

of Vohra Committee, Report of Task Force on internal security, Report

of Chief Ministers conference on Internal Security and other

Commissions on topics relevant to the Criminal Justice System.

(16) Study the Criminal Justice Systems in U.K, Australia, France, USA and

other countries and the reforms undertaken by them.

(17) Make a comparative study of Criminal Justice Systems in 20 selected

countries from different continents.

(18) Interact with experts from different countries in the world.

(19) Examine Reports of the National Crime Bureau upto 2000.

1.9. After an in-depth study of the problem facing the Criminal Justice

System the questionnaire was prepared and sent to 3,164 persons enclosing a

pre-paid envelope to enable them to respond without incurring any expenditure.

The list includes the Prime Minister, Home Minister, Law Minister, Attorney

General, Home Secretary, Law Secretary, Govt. of India, Law Commission of

India and functionaries of the State Governments such as the Chief Ministers,

Home Ministers, Law Ministers, Chief Secretaries, Law Secretaries, Home

Secretaries, Advocate Generals, D.GsP, Director of Prosecution, the Chief

Justices of the High Courts, Senior District Judges, different Bar Associations

and State and Central Bar Councils, Bar Association Lawyers. However the

number of responses received is only 284.

1.10. Views of all the High Courts and information relating to institutions,

pendency, disposal and other relevant information were sought from all the

High Courts. As the response was not encouraging, the Chief Justice of India,

on being requested by the Chairman, called upon all the High Courts to send

their responses. As a result of the initiative of the Chief Justice, all the High

Courts have sent their reports. (Refer Appendix 5, Volume II). However some

of them have not furnished all the information sought, in the pro forma in

regard to filing, disposal, pendency of criminal cases etc.

1.11. Similarly all the State Governments were requested to send their views.

But only the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh,

Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir have submitted

their replies. Other States have not responded inspite of repeated requests.

(Refer Appendix 6, Volume II).

1.12. Reports on the functioning of the prosecution system in all the States

were sought from the respective heads of Police Departments. Reports have been received from the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, and Uttaranchal. Others have not responded. (Refer Appendix 7, Volume III).

1.13. The Committee organised seminars as follows: -

Date                            Place             Topic

9 February 2002        Chennai      Media and Criminal Justice System

23/24 February2002   Jaipur         Reforms of Criminal Justice System

                                                       (Investigation, Sentencing and Prosecution)

22/23 March 2002     Mumbai        Economic Crimes and Financial Frauds

26/27/28 April 2002   Delhi          Fundamental Principles of Criminal Justice

                                                       – A Fresh Look.

1.14. Several other seminars organised on the recommendations of the

Committee by different organizations and many more seminars organised by

different organisations on the topics concerning the Criminal Justice System in

which the Chairman or members of the Committee actively participated are the

following: -

1.15. It is heartening to know that many eminent personalities participated in these seminars. Notable among them are Dr. R.Venkataraman, former President of India, Sri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat (now Vice-President of India), Sri Arun Jaitley, Honourable Minister for Law, former Chief Justices Sri Ranganath Misra, Sri A.M. Ahmadi, Sri M.H. Kania, Dr. A.S. Anand, former Supreme Court Judges Sri. K.Jayachandra Reddy, Sri. Jaganadha Rao, Sri.K.T. Thomas and many Senior Advocates Sri. Fali Nariman, Sri Soli Sorabjee, Attorney General, Sri K.K.Venugopal, Sri Shantibhushan, Sri. P.P. Rao, Sri V.R. Reddy, Sri. Dipankar P.Gupta, Sri. K.N. Bhat.

1.16. The Chairman held discussions with Mr. Badri Bahadur Karki, Attorney General of Nepal who is engaged in reforming the criminal prosecution system in his country. The Chairman discussed with Lord Goldsmith, Attorney General of U.K and held discussion with particular reference to several reforms undertaken in that country. The Chairman and members Professor Madhava Menon and Mr. Subba Rao participated in a video conference on reforms with prominent criminal lawyers from U.K. The Chairman and member Mr. Subba Rao visited Paris on the invitation of the French Government to study the Inquisitorial System followed in that country. Similar invitation from USA Agency USAID could not be accepted for want of time. Therefore USAID was good enough to send four experts to New Delhi who enlightened the Committee about the salient features of the Criminal

Justice System in USA.

1.17. The Committee made an in-depth study of the materials gathered in

respect of all the 19 items mentioned in the earlier paragraph.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM – AN OVERVIEW:-

Whatever views one holds about the penal law, no one will question its importance to society. This is the law on which men place their ultimate reliance for protection against all the deepest injuries that human conduct can inflict on individuals and institutions. By the same token, penal law governs the strongest force that we permit official agencies to bring to bear on individuals. Its promise as an instrument of safety is matched only by its power to destroy. Nowhere in the entire legal field is more at stake for the community or for the individual.

Herbert Wechsler

1.18. There was no criminal law in uncivilized society. Every man was liable to be attacked on his person or property at any time by any one. The person attacked either succumbed or over-powered his opponent. “A tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye, a life for a life” was the forerunner of criminal justice. As time advanced, the injured person agreed to accept compensation, instead of killing his adversary. Subsequently, a sliding scale of satisfying ordinary offences came into existence. Such a system gave birth to the archaic criminal law. For a long time, the application of these principles remained with the parties themselves, but gradually this function came to be performed by the State.

1.19. Since Independence and the promulgation of our Constitution rapid strides have been made in almost all fields. The communication revolution has opened the eyes, ears and minds of millions of people, resulting in increasing expectations of an ever growing population. The desire for quick, fair and affordable justice is universal. Protection of life and liberty have been given a pre-eminent position in our Constitution by enacting Article 21 as a fundamental right and imposing a duty on the State to protect life and personal liberty of every citizen. Any deprivation or breach of this valuable right is not permissible unless the procedure prescribed by law for that purpose is just, fair and reasonable. Has the State been able to keep up to this promise in a substantial measure? The ground reality, however, is that this precious fundamental right is turning out to be a mere pipe dream to many millions to whom justice is delayed, distorted or denied more than its delivery in accordance with the ideals enshrined in the Constitution. The entire existence of the orderly society depends upon sound and efficient functioning of the Criminal Justice System.

1.20. Latest report of the National Crime Record Bureau, 2000 (NCRB) published by the Ministry of Home Affairs, shows that in the year 1951 there were 6,49,728 cognizable crimes under the IPC. This has risen to 17,71,084 in the year 2000. In the year 1953 (figures for 1951 are not available) there were 49,578 violent crimes whereas in the year 2000 the number of violent crimes has increased to 2,38,381 (for the sake of illustration only figures of cognizable IPC crimes have been taken). These figures indicate an abnormal increase in the number of serious crimes. At the same time the population of the country which was 361.1 million in 1951 has increased to 1002.1 million in 2000.

Consolidated Statement of Cases Dealt with by the Courts in India from

1996 to 2000

TABLE-2

1.21. Out of every 100 cases (both IPC and SLL crimes) reported to and taken up by the Police for investigation, between 25 and 30 cases are IPC crimes and the balance is accounted for by SLL crimes. Of the IPC crimes taken up by police for investigation every year, investigation is completed by the police in 76% to 80% of these cases. The corresponding percentage in respect of SLL cases is between 85 and 95.

1.22. The above statistics suggest that as of January 2003, assuming that we have

The above statistics suggest that as of January 2003, assuming that we have a crime free society with Police not having to take cognizance of and investigate any

crime (either IPC or SLL) from now on and the strength of the trial courts remain at the present level numerically and efficiency wise, (an unrealistic assumption indeed!) it will take a minimum of another four years for the courts to dispose of all these cases.

1.23. These figures show that the courts have not been able to cope up with the number of cases that come before them for trial every year. According to Table 1 the total number of complaints received by the police and cases registered during the year 2000 in India is 56,62,773. It is a matter of common knowledge that several persons who are victims of crimes do not complain to the police. During the year 2000 the total number of cases charge-sheeted after investigation is 50,98,304. The total number of cases disposed of by the courts in the year 2000 is 9,32,774. So far as the cases under IPC are concerned, the analysis in the report on page 1 of the NCRB report shows that 79% of IPC cases were investigated in the year 2000, 78.4% of them were charge-sheeted, 18.3% of them were tried and 41.8% of them resulted in conviction. In many Countries like U.K., U.S.A, France, Japan and Singapore the rate of conviction is more than 90%.

1.24. Quality of justice suffers not only when an innocent person is punished or a guilty person is exonerated but when there is enormous delay in deciding the criminal cases. It is a trite saying that justice delayed is justice denied. Table 25(b) of the NCRB report, 2000 furnishes the duration of trial of cases during 2000. It is seen that 10,382 cases of the duration of 3 to 5 years, 6,503 cases of the duration of 5-10 years and 2,187 cases of the duration of over 10 years were disposed of by

all the courts in India during 2000. Taking more than 3 years (sometimes even 10 years) amounts to denying fair trial. Speedy trial is a right of the accused that flows from Article 21 as held by the Supreme Court. If the accused is acquitted after such long delay one can imagine the unnecessary suffering he was subjected to. Many times such inordinate delay contributes to acquittal of guilty persons either because the evidence is lost or because of lapse of time, or the witnesses do not remember all the details or the witnesses do not come forward to give true evidence due to threats, inducement or sympathy. Whatever may be the reason it is justice that becomes a casualty.

1.25. Vulnerable sections of the society like women, children and other members of weaker sections of society like the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes suffer more when the Criminal Justice System fails to live up to expectations.

Crime Against Women

Table 3

Several disturbing features are seen from the figures given in this table. There is a 6.6% increase in the offence of rape from 1999 to 2000. So far as the percentage of sexual harassment during the same period is concerned, there is an increase of 24.5%. What is worst is the figures relating to importation of girls obviously for sex which has increased to 63% during 2000. This is quite shocking.

1.26. So far as offences against children are concerned, Table 4 furnishes information about the incidents of different types of offences against them between 1996 and 2000.

Offences against Children

Table 4

The figures show a mixed trend during the last five years. There is an increase of 1.3% from 1999 to 2000.

1.27. So far as incidence of child rape is concerned, there were 744 victims below 10 years and 2,880 victims between of 10 and 16 years. This shows the extent of child abuse that is prevalent in India and the failure of the system to contain it. This is very disturbing.

1.28. So far as crime against other weaker sections of the society namely the SC and ST are concerned, the figures for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000 are furnished in the Tables 5 and 6.

TABLE-5