Monitoring criminal investigation process

The central level monitoring mechanism is of recent origin. If anything, it is indicative of the government's efforts to arrest the continuing downslide in the law and order situation in the country. This aspect has also attracted the attention of the donor community who openly voiced their concern about it at the recently held development forum meeting.

It is reported that the senior police officers present at the aforesaid meeting revealed the difficulties associated with quick completion of investigation of serious and sensational cases. The unusual delay in murder cases is said to be caused by lack of timely submission of post-mortem reports by the relevant medical officer. The police officers pointed out that about 2,000 dead bodies related to different murders were sent for autopsy in different hospitals during January, February and March 2004. This means that on an average 22 murders occurred per day. If this trend continues there will be over 8,000 murder cases in a year. The police received post-mortem report of only 1,050 cases. This means that in 950 or about 48 percent of the murder cases, such reports were not received till the date of the monitoring committee meeting.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Instruction by the state minister
The State Minister of MHA is reported to have reacted to the above by instructing the relevant officials of MHA and of Health Ministry to formulate a joint policy guideline to solve the problem and urged them to submit the same to the next meeting of the committee. Two facts emerge out of the instructions so given by the State Minister.

First, there is an absence of guidelines for timely submission of post-mortem reports. Second, the guidelines to be prepared will require approval of the monitoring cell.

In this context, the statement of the State Minister as it was aired by an electronic media also revealed that concerned medical officers responsible for delay in submission of post-mortem reports should be asked to explain the delay. In addition, he referred to a pending list of as many as 4,000 reports of post-mortem, which is much higher than what had appeared in the print media. Leaving aside this mismatch of figures, the substantive question to be raised is whether at all the country needs any new guidelines for timely submission of post-mortem reports by the medical officers.

Are new guidelines needed?
The legal framework for dealing with post-mortem examinations is embodied in the Police Act of 1861 (Section 12). The details are elaborated in the Police Regulation of Bangladesh (PRB rules 304-310). The rules provide in clear and unambiguous terms the details of the duties of the police as well as the medical officers and cover the various steps to be taken for timely completion of post-mortem reports. Rules require a prescribed form in triplicate to be used by the police and the medical officer.

The date and time of dispatch to the medical officer, the receipt of the body with date and time by the officer are to be noted. Similarly, after completion of post-mortem, the medical officer has to use another prescribed form in triplicate. One copy of the form duly filled in must be given by the medical officer to the constable who brought the dead body for post-mortem (rule 306).

The original report of post-mortem is to be sent to the Superintendent of Police (SP) directly by the medical officer or in case of a subordinate medical officer conducting the post-mortem, such report shall be sent through the Civil Surgeon to the SP. The latter will send the same to the Court Police Officer to submit before the magistrate concerned. The medical officer is required to maintain a register of post-mortem cases. The rules also require that when possible, the investigating officer (IO) should be encouraged to attend post-mortem examination.

Admittedly, no time-limit is set for the medical officer to complete the post-mortem examination. However, the fact that as many as three functionaries besides the medical officer, are kept fully informed of every case of post-mortem implies that these functionaries are not monitoring the status of disposal of post-mortem cases. First of these functionaries is the IO. Second is the Civil Surgeon and third is the SP. Add to this the fact that the medical officer is required under the rules to keep a register of post-mortem. Has any Civil Surgeon or any superior medical officer ever cared to inspect it to ascertain the status of disposal of cases? What about the IO? The onus is more on him to see to it that the post-mortem report is received in time. Should he not chase the medical officer for this? What about the SP? SPs including Additional SPs are required under PRB to personally supervise cases of serious nature otherwise referred to as special report cases (rule 55).

In this context, it is also relevant to point out that rules require that the IO "shall, whenever, possible, persue the investigation to its completion without a break in continuity: (rule 261). It is not expected that IO will be able to do this in all cases. But it is definitely to be expected and in fact required that IO must take pains to observe the above regulatory requirement in all cases of public importance.

In this context, it may also be mentioned that the relevant provision of CrPC (Section 173) requires that IO must complete investigation within 15 days. In case he is unable to do so for good reasons, he must inform the concerned magistrate with details of reasons that justify prolonged investigation beyond 15 days and shall also mention a period by which he expects to complete investigation [rule 261(c)].

The question is do we need to have a top level monitoring committee whose members are completely innocent of the legal and the regulatory framework that must guide the criminal investigation process. What we have now is a show of instructions from the top, which is much publicized in the media without any substantive results. Results can be achieved by taking strong and determined measures at the operating level rather than sermons from the top.

A decentralised mechanism of monitoring crimes
PRB has, in fact, an elaborately defined decentralised monitoring mechanism that can be effectively used. This mechanism speaks of cooperation, conferences and meetings that must be held by (a) Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) (b) SP involving the DC and (c) officers in charge of police circles (rules 121-126). Are these conferences and meetings held at such times and intervals as prescribed under the rules? Was the issue of delay in submission of post-mortem reports by the medical officer ever raised and discussed in such conferences and meetings?

Dangers associated with top level instructions
Dangers associated with top-down process of instructions can be many and varied. First, the relevant officials responsible to facilitate speedy completion of criminal investigation develop a propensity to 'watch and see' syndrome and remain inactive. Second, which is more substantive in nature, it is more likely to compromise the integrity of the investigation process. Third, under pressure of instructions from the top, in particular from political level, the quality of investigation may be adversely affected to achieve the time limit set by such instructions. This will result in acquittals rather than convictions of criminals thus defeating the ends of justice.

Arrogating judicial authority
Our politicians are quick to issue verbal instructions in matters relating to criminal administration, arresting criminals and, in particular, filing of charge sheets. As mentioned earlier, apart from compromising the investigation process, some of the utterances, specially those relating to filing of charge sheets within a definite time, imply that they literally transgress into the judicial arena. Under the established laws and regulations, it is only the relevant courts of law which can set or accept a time-limit for completion of investigation when the statutory time-limit of 15 days are exceeded.

Investigation process and the law courts
One may legitimately ask the question, if the above belongs to the judicial domain, what the law courts are doing. Are they giving routine extensions of time or sending signals to the superior police authority about the laxity on the part of IOs in quick completion of investigation, in particular, cases of grave and serious nature?

The upshot
The upshot of above discussion is that the system of criminal administration as embodied in the relevant legal and regulatory framework, which have stood the test of time, appears to have collapsed. This is primarily because (a) direct political involvement (b) inability or unwillingness of the police to go by the book, (c) complete ignorance of the regulatory requirements on the part of some top-level bureaucrats and (d) lack of attention of the law courts to strictly enforce the legal regime. Serious efforts must be made to restore the age-old system. It should be distinctly understood that supplanting the regulatory mechanism by top-down process of instructions cannot conduce to good governance.

A M M Shawkat Ali, PhD is former Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture.