Abstract
This paper focuses on the changing role of prosecutors in the Indian criminal justice system and the organizational flaws that impede the effectiveness and fair delivery of justice by the prosecutors.
The author states that the prosecutors are considered to be unbiased ministers of justice but they are in a system where they are controlled by the executive system, they have too many cases, they are not specialized and they do not have the necessary forensic integration.
The paper identifies these flaws and their adverse effects on the due process, low conviction rates, and lack of trust in the system and society through constitutional principles, judicial precedents, and trends in practical case-law.
Finally, the author proposes the independence of the institutions, the modernization of the forensic sphere, the collaboration of investigations, and professional education to create the prosecution system that can balance reasonable convictions and constitutional justice.
Key Themes in the Abstract
- Changing role of prosecutors
- Organizational and structural flaws
- Impact on due process and conviction rates
- Need for institutional independence and modernization
Major Problems Identified
| Problem Area | Description from the Text |
|---|---|
| Executive Control | Prosecutors are in a system where they are controlled by the executive system |
| Excessive Workload | They have too many cases |
| Lack of Specialization | They are not specialized |
| Forensic Gaps | They do not have the necessary forensic integration |
Introduction
The prosecutor assumes a unique and powerful role in the Indian criminal justice system.
The police performs the task of collection of evidence and investigation but the role of evaluation of the quality of evidence is performed by the prosecutor who develops the charges, trials, and determines that justice is served without interfering with constitutional freedoms.
However, the prosecutorial system of India is associated with structural, administrative, and professional barriers that negatively influence the conviction rates and the protection of the due process as required by the Constitution.
The Indian legal apparatus is aimed at striking a balance between ensuring offenders are answerable and at the same time maintaining the rights of the accused of Articles 20 to 22 and Article 21 in ways that are holistic.
The practice however reveals a paradoxical situation in the low conviction rates, lack of forensics resources, hostility of witnesses, political influence and a clear lack of prosecutor independence and specialization.
Constitutional Context
- Articles 20 to 22
- Article 21
- Protection of due process
- Balancing state power and individual rights
Practical Challenges Highlighted
| Challenge | Explanation from the Text |
|---|---|
| Low Conviction Rates | A paradoxical situation in the low conviction rates |
| Forensic Deficiency | Lack of forensics resources |
| Witness Issues | Hostility of witnesses |
| Political Influence | Political influence |
| Institutional Weakness | Lack of prosecutor independence and specialization |
Legal Framework and Structural Gaps in the Prosecution System
Statutory Provisions and Limitations
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) of 2023 specifies the appointment procedures, power, and duties of prosecutors in India. Sections 18, 19, and 20 give prescriptions of the method and procedure of appointment of Public Prosecutors (PPs) and Assistant Public Prosecutors (APPs) and the Directorate of Prosecution[1]. However, regardless of their importance, these sections demonstrate the presence of significant structural gaps.
Lack of Independence from Executive Control
- The state governments appoint prosecutors, which is prone to politicisation.
- This compromises objectivity and creates an impression that the judgment of prosecutors can be affected by politics instead of merit in the face of evidence[2].
- Lack of a constitutional or statutory requirement to ensure independence is a cause of serious concern.
High Workload and Inadequate Resources
- Public Prosecutors have hundreds of cases each and regularly deal with them at the same time, making it challenging to prepare thoroughly.
- Numerous offices do not have basic infrastructures, research assistance, or possibilities of utilizing digital evidence-management resources, which limits successful litigation.
Absence of Specialization
The modern day crimes such as hacks against cyberspace, terrorism, money laundering, and homicides that require forensic expertise demand specifications of the domain. However, the prosecutors are very rarely trained in these niche areas, which reduces their ability to challenge expert testimony or maneuver within technical evidence.
Judicial Perspective
| Case | Year | Key Observation |
|---|---|---|
| Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand | 1999 | The Supreme Court pointed out that a prosecutor is not an agent of the investigating agency, he is a minister of justice whose task is to help the court to find the truth[3]. |
Although the above mentioned is the case with such a judicial pronouncement, the identified above weaknesses of the system disrupt the ability of prosecutors to perform this role fully.
Judicial Interpretation: Prosecutorial Duties and Due Process
Constitutional Standards and Fair Trial Principles
The constitutional jurisprudence in India has developed significantly in order to protect the rights of the accused. Article 21, as understood in Maneka Gandhi, adds fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness to due process[4]. This development has taken the form of a number of prosecutorial duties in criminal trials.
Disclosure of Exculpatory Evidence
Exclusiveness of exculpatory evidence is an obligation that must be disclosed when requested; otherwise, it will serve as a breach of the due process. Courts pronouncements have continually been critical of unfair prosecutorial actions of obscuring the truth.
Duty to Maintain Neutrality
Prosecutors cannot take a conviction-oriented approach. In the case of Zahira Sheikh vs. State of Kerala (Best Bakery case) [5] indicated that the role of the prosecutor in the court should not be subjective but rather serve to help the court to make sense of the factual matrix, especially in cases involving the society.
Supervisory Role of Courts
In case of bias, slow process or manipulation during investigative processes, courts step in to create procedural fairness. In State of Kerala v. P.B. Sourabhan [6] the Court claimed that prosecutorial fairness is one of the basic components of criminal justice.
Duty to Ensure Ethical Conduct and Prevent Miscarriage of Justice
The point made in Indian courts has been that prosecutors have an ethical duty to prevent miscarriage of justice which may require them to undermine their own case. Babu v. State of Kerala ruled that the prosecution is not allowed to use dubious evidence or hide contradictions. This is a moral obligation that supports the rights in Article 21[7].
Forensic Linkages and Evidentiary Problems
Modern Evidence and Its Integration with Prosecution
The success of prosecution in the twenty first century largely depends on the nature of the forensic science and the purity of the digital evidence. However, in India, the lack of laboratories is felt, the reports have long pendency, and the cooperation between investigators and prosecutors is still unsatisfactory.
Some deep-rooted issues include:
- Delay in FSL Reports:
Labs exist in clogged conditions and as a result, the delays take a long time which in most cases exceeds one year in sexual assault cases, narcotics cases and homicide cases, the long delays significantly negatively impact prosecutional strategy[8]. - Weak Chain of Custody:
The evidence is commonly not handled properly during the seizure, transportation and storage and complete lack of documentation makes prosecutors incapable of proving reliability of evidence in court. - Absence of Prosecutorial Involvement in Investigation:
In contrast to most developed jurisdiction the Indian prosecutors are not involved in the early stages of the investigation process which leads to the gathering of evidence that is often irrelevant, inadmissible, or contradicts the theoretical framework of the prosecution. - Digital Evidence Challenges:
Section 62 and 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam require a high level of compliance concerning electronic evidence[9], and in Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer, the Supreme Court stated that the use of certificates is obligatory in case of electronic records[10]. As a result, many of the cases are lost since the prosecutors are unable to meet these technical requirements.
Summary Table of Prosecutorial Challenges
| Issue | Description | Impact on Prosecution |
|---|---|---|
| Delay in FSL Reports | Long pendency of forensic reports | Weakens prosecutional strategy |
| Weak Chain of Custody | Poor handling and documentation of evidence | Reduces reliability in court |
| Lack of Prosecutorial Involvement | No early participation in investigation | Leads to irrelevant or inadmissible evidence |
| Digital Evidence Compliance | Strict statutory requirements | Cases lost due to technical non-compliance |
Case Law Trends and Practical Challenges in Prosecution
Hostile Witnesses, Delays, and Procedural Gaps
One of the biggest problems in Indian prosecutions is the great number of hostile witnesses and in most cases this is due to intimidation or bribery or poor protection of the witnesses. In Krishna Mochi vs. State of Bihar, The Supreme Court in noted that the collapse of prosecution cases where the witnesses recant, causes a court to acquit even in a case that is serious[11].
Additional Practical Barriers
| Barrier | Description |
|---|---|
| Poorly Framed Charges | The wrong or imprecise charges as provided by BNSS Secs. 234 and 238 cause confusion, inconsistencies in the trial approach, and provided a defense with room to use technical mistakes in his favor[12]. |
| Delayed Trials | The Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon said that speedy trial was the necessary component of Article 21[13]. However, these postponements due to adjournments, failure to produce accused persons, shortage of court and loss of evidence is a major issue. |
| Limited Victim Participation | The victims typically feel marginalized because the prosecutors are not trained to deal with them and integrate their issues properly. |
| Weak Police–Prosecutor Coordination | The investigations usually take place without the direction of prosecutor. The outcome of this disconnection is poorly documented evidence, contradictions and poor narratives. |
Absence of Pre-Trial Coordination with Forensic Experts (FSL)
Although the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, applies to forensic evidence, prosecutors do not normally engage FSL experts prior to trial. This can complicate the defence of forensic results in the cross-examination and proving admissibility under Sections 39 (expert opinion) and 62-63 (digital evidence). Poor chain-of-custody explanations, which are critical in demonstrating evidence that is not tampered, are also a result of lack of coordination.
Conclusion: Balancing Convictions and Due Process
The necessity to increase conviction rates and the necessity to have due process are not only legal issues that must be balanced but they also represent an institutional, administrative and ethical problem that India faces. The goal must not be to make such a injustice through convictions, but to create a regime where just convictions come as an organic result of good investigations and strong prosecutions.
Critical Observations
- There is a lack of institutional autonomy within the prosecutors that often falls back on the executive power and, as a result, inhibits the objectivity of the prosecutors.
- The forensic systems still are primitive, sluggish, and unable to be combined with prosecutorial strategy.
- Protection measures that are applied to these witnesses are weak thus leading to tampered testimonies.
- Prosecutors are overworking, inexperienced and seldom expertised.
- High acquittal rates are usually symptoms of failure within the system, and not an indication of innocence.
Policy Implications
The reforms should focus on institution-building, capacity development, and accountability. India must move towards a prosecutorial system similar to those found in the international system, where prosecutors lead investigations throughout, maintain fairness and provide science based evidence.
Recommendations
- Introduce separate directorates of prosecution in each state, as independent of the police and executive.
- Engage prosecutors at the investigation level especially in complicated and forensic intensive cases.
- Preparation investigating positive links among forensic infrastructure, laboratory capacity, prosecutor training in scientific evidence, and digital chain-of-custody.
- Implement the Witness Protection Scheme 2018 throughout the country and fully fund and monitor.
- Introduce on-going training on cyber law, financial crime, criminology, and evidence law.
- Embrace case-management systems which will help the prosecutors prepare effectively with less case loads.
- Evaluate performance indicators, and now it is the quality of the outcomes and compliance with the due process that should take the center stage.
End-Notes
- Bharatiya Nagarik Sukraksha Sanhita, Sec 18, 19 & 20, 2023
- K. Chockalingam, Criminal Justice Administration in India, 2001
- Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand, 1999 7 SCC 467
- Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, 25 January 1978
- Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, 2004 4 SCC 158
- P.B. Sourabhan Case, 2016 4 SCC 102
- Abhinav Sekhri, Due Process and Criminal Justice in India, 53 EPW 24, 2018
- S. Raghavan, Forensic Challenges in Indian Criminal Justice, 12 NLSIR 87, 2020
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Sec 62 and 63
- Anwar P.V vs. P.K Basheer, 2014 10 SCC 473
- Krishna Mochi vs. State of Bihar, 2002 6 SCC 81
- Bharatiya Nagarik Sukraksha Sanhita, Sec 234 and 238, 2023
- Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, 1980 1 SCC 81
