Revive art of investigation

By Radhavinod Raju

The art of investigation is one of the biggest casualties in modern day policing in India. In the classical sense, connecting the criminal with the scene of crime through evidence collected from the scene and from clues and leads developed from this evidence was a challenge for the professional investigator. Almost every state police organisation had a number of such meticulous and hardworking police investigators who were able to successfully tackle the most mysterious of crimes. Organisations like the Central Bureau of Investigation used to be on the look-out for such talented officers to take them on deputation. Today, policing is mostly about maintenance of order, with hardly any attention being paid to investigation of crime. Investigation has fallen to such neglect that various police commissions and committees set up by the government and the Supreme Court have recommended that the functions of law and order and investigation be separated. Yet investigation continues to remain a neglected function of the police department across the country.

We can no longer neglect this important police function. Several important unsolved cases in the country, especially pertaining to bomb blasts and other terrorist attacks, pose a challenge to the professional investigator. From the scene, the investigator learns about the modus operandi involved in the attack, the explosive or fire-arm used, and looks for other clues and evidence about the criminal. This takes time, and needs patient handling. The superior officer mostly comes under media and governmental pressure to produce quick result, but the officer has to take the pressure and guide the investigator to reach the right conclusion.

Introduction of mobile phone technology in India led to rapid growth in the use of mobile phones all across the country. Criminals also started to take advantage of this technology for communication and coordination. For the police and intelligence agencies, this became a legitimate tool to track criminals, within the confines of legal and constitutional provisions. Terrorists have become wise to these developments due to wide coverage in the media. Thus they do not rely on the use of mobile phones during the operation period. When this happens, investigations come to a standstill, because the investigator has also started relying on this technology alone to solve cases. He forgets the Locard’s principle that the criminal would leave his pug marks at the scene of crime. To look for such pug marks needed patience and an immense faith in the techniques of investigation. Today none has time for such ‘out-dated’, though time-tested, methods.

With techniques like lie-detection, brain mapping and narco-analysis gaining popularity, investigators forgot that these are only tools to help them look for clues after having failed to get anything to link the suspect with the crime from the crime scene. These techniques will have to be rarely used, till they gain credibility in the eyes of law. As more and more cases are piled on to the investigator, by the constitutional courts or the state governments, whether in the state police or in central organisations like the CBI, the investigator would look for short cuts, like phone records, or some of the above mentioned tests, to solve cases. Good old methods of combing the scene of crime looking for clues and leads would require the investigator to go and camp at the scene for days on end. No one has the time, or the inclination, to do such hard work anymore.

In the case of blasts like the ones in Mumbai last month, the modus operandi used can give clues, especially if similar blasts with the same type of explosives have occurred in other parts of India. The Intelligence Bureau keeps records of all such blasts, the CBI keeps records of blasts investigated by them, and the National Security Guards also visit the scene and update their database of blasts, and chemicals and other items like timer devices used in improvised explosive device (IEDs). Yet, it is only the investigator who can finally solve the puzzle of who put the IED together, what was the motive, the modus operandi, how many are involved in the conspiracy, collect evidence that is admissible in court, linking the accused with the crime, and file a chargesheet under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The number of terror related cases that end in acquittal would only go to show that no professional investigator was associated with the investigation. Two Pakistanis were recently acquitted by a Delhi court of all charges brought against them by the prosecution in the Chattisinghpora massacre of 36 Sikhs in Kashmir in 2000. ‘Pairavi’ is a term commonly used in organisations like the CBI. It is the close follow-up of cases being tried in the court. An officer is earmarked to follow a case, and provide all assistance to the prosecutor, so that witnesses are produced in time, and documents and material objects that are crucial for the success of the case are identified and produced in court. The ‘pairavi’ officer and prosecutor would know if a witness is likely to turn hostile, and will take measures to counter such moves of the defence. This is mostly unheard of in state police organisations.

The National Investigation Agency was set up in the wake of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks. The NIA’s mandate is, among others, to investigate cases related to terrorism in any part of India. However, it can take up a case only after the Ministry of Home Affairs orders it to take up a particular case. Officers of the NIA have an all-India perspective, and are highly experienced in dealing with terrorism and related cases. They hail from different parts of India, where terror has left its mark, and are experts in their field. They have been working closely with state police organisations, especially the units created to tackle terrorism. They are best suited to investigate cases like the Pune German Bakery blasts of February, 2010 and the 13/7 Mumbai blasts.

New Indian Express

18th August 2011