When courts find no one guilty after a crime, it’s the justice system that’s in the dock

-

In 2006, when the key accused in the murder of model Jessica Lal walked free, The Times of India summed up the nation’s disbelief with an intriguing headline: “No One Killed Jessica.” It was more than a headline—it was a grim commentary on the state of India’s criminal justice system. A 22-year-old was shot dead in a crowded Delhi nightclub, in full view of scores of people. An individual with political clout and his friends stood accused. However, seven years after the murder, the court acquits them all.

The inevitable, almost absurd question followed: If no one killed Jessica, then who did? That single line exposed the unsettling truth that while every crime has a perpetrator, fixing the guilt and ensuring justice does not always follow. And here is where the failure of prosecuting agencies lies.

Two blasts; everyone’s acquitted

Recently, in two separate cases—the Mumbai railway blasts of July 2006 and the Malegaon blasts of September 2008—all accused were acquitted. The first blast claimed over 200 lives, the second around 10. In the Mumbai blasts case, the acquittal stemmed from the prosecution’s inability to prove the “trustworthiness of the witnesses who identified the accused” and from doubts over confessional statements, which were deemed “not truthful” by the court. In the Malegaon case, the court found a complete absence of “cogent evidence,” and whatever material was presented was “riddled with inconsistencies.”

In both instances, it was not merely the accused who stood in the dock—it was the investigating agencies and the prosecution, whose failure to conduct a thorough probe and present a watertight case ensured that justice remained elusive.

Law is the framework we follow to reach justice, but the two are not always identical. In cases like the Malegaon and Mumbai attacks, acquittals may reflect the due process of law and even protect the innocent from wrongful conviction—yet, for the families of the victims, justice remains out of reach. Their loss is compounded by the feeling that while the law has run its course, their right to closure has been denied.

In such situations, the State—duty-bound to protect the life and liberty of its citizens and to prosecute breaches thereof—appears in poor stead, as its law enforcement and prosecutorial mechanisms seem inadequate to secure justice and uphold public confidence in the legal system.

Loose strands during investigation undermine prosecution’s case

In any criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused “beyond a reasonable doubt” to secure a conviction. However, often due to many loose strands, the prosecution fails to do so, leading to the acquittal of the accused persons. And, the biggest reason for the prosecution's failure to prove the guilt beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt is the lack of a proper investigation that can strengthen the prosecution’s case.

In this regard, the Supreme Court of India made a very important observation in a judgment titled ‘Himmat Sukhadeo Wahurwagh & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra’. The court said, in its judgment: “The criminal justice system as we understand it as of today in our country, is beset with major issues, sometimes unrelated to what happens in court, particularly in cases involving more than one accused. Fudged and dishonest first information reports, tardy and misdirected investigations and witnesses committing perjury with not the slightest qualm or a quibble make the decision of even the most diligent and focused of judges particularly galling and difficult.”

In criminal trials, the standard of proof required to secure a conviction is the principle of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. This benchmark, rooted in Anglo-Saxon law, serves as the litmus test for a fair trial. William Blackstone famously argued that “all presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously, for the law holds that ten guilty persons should escape than that one innocent suffer.”

Acquittals after imprisonment leave everyone worse off

The purpose of examining the acquittals in the Mumbai blasts and Malegaon blasts cases is not to question the innocence of those cleared by the courts. The real question is: Who, then, is responsible for these attacks that claimed so many innocent lives? And what about the heavy cost borne by the accused—years spent behind bars, only to live the rest of their lives under the shadow of suspicion? The prosecution’s failure to bring the real perpetrators to justice is a travesty on two fronts. For those acquitted, it means enduring the suffering inflicted by an incompetent system despite not committing the crime. For the victims’ families, it marks the end of the road in their pursuit of justice, leaving their questions unanswered and the loss unavenged.

According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) report for 2020 in heinous crimes like rape and murder, the conviction rate was very low at 39 per cent and 41 per cent, respectively. This low rate of conviction was attributed to various causes.

Attempts to reform criminal justice system

The central government has long been concerned about the low conviction rate and has mooted key policy measures to address it. A 2018 Firstpost report stated that the Centre was considering allowing the Directorate of Prosecution to be headed by a police officer to improve conviction rates in the states. The report also mentioned that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had proposed regular meetings between police officers and prosecutors to identify and address shortcomings in investigations that lead to acquittals. The report also stated that another issue that was taken up as a priority was the separation of law and order duty and investigation to improve the quality of investigation, to have a dedicated team of officers in all police stations across the country.

In May 2025, Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Monday also directed the Delhi police to work towards improving the conviction rate in cases of heinous crimes by 20 per cent.

NIA is the lead agency in terror investigations

Terror cases in India are investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), established in 2009 in the aftermath of the Mumbai terror attacks. In December 2022, Union Minister of State for Home Nityanand Rai told the Rajya Sabha that the NIA had registered 497 terrorism cases so far, with judgments delivered in 67 cases and convictions secured in 65 of them. In the Mumbai case, the trial court in 2015 convicted all but one accused, but the High Court later overturned the verdict.

While Rai highlighted the NIA’s near-100% conviction rate in terror cases, even a single case collapsing without anyone being held guilty remains a serious concern. Perhaps for this reason, as reported by the Hindustan Times, in 2013—amid probes in several terror cases failing judicial scrutiny—the NIA commissioned the Indian Law Institute (ILI) to study recent terror cases and identify shortcomings in investigative efforts.

While Blackstone’s principle must be respected in criminal cases, the Supreme Court of India—quoting a British court judgment—has rightly observed: “A judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties”. Fulfilling this dual responsibility requires judges to maintain the utmost balance, which in turn depends on the prosecution performing its duties diligently. And that, ultimately, hinges on how meticulously the investigating agencies conduct their work without lapses.