Role Of Prosecution And Investigative Agencies In High-Profile Trials

🔎 ROLE OF PROSECUTION AND INVESTIGATIVE AGENCIES IN HIGH-PROFILE TRIALS

1. Investigation by Law Enforcement Agencies (Police, CBI, ED, etc.):

Collection of evidence: Agencies must collect forensic, documentary, electronic, and testimonial evidence.

Impartiality: Agencies must remain unbiased regardless of the accused’s status.

Legal compliance: Following CrPC, IPC, PMLA, etc., to ensure admissibility of evidence.

Coordination: Often coordinate with other departments, especially in financial crimes or crimes with cross-border implications.

Charge-sheet filing: Once investigation is complete, a charge sheet is filed under Section 173 CrPC.

2. Role of Prosecution (Public Prosecutor):

Screening of cases: They examine the evidence before taking it to trial.

Representation in court: Present evidence, conduct examination-in-chief and cross-examination.

Ensuring fairness: Obligated not to secure conviction at all costs but to ensure a fair trial.

Advisory role: Often advise investigating officers during evidence collection.

🧑‍⚖️ LANDMARK CASES DEMONSTRATING THESE ROLES

1. 2G Spectrum Scam Case – CBI vs. A. Raja and Others

Court: Special CBI Court, 2017
Agencies: Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Enforcement Directorate (ED)

Facts:

Involved irregular allocation of 2G spectrum licenses under former Telecom Minister A. Raja, leading to alleged losses of ₹1.76 lakh crore.

Role of Agencies:

CBI conducted extensive investigation into telecom policy manipulation, call records, financial records.

ED probed money laundering and traced funds diverted to companies owned by accused parties.

Prosecution’s Role: Presented voluminous documentation, including corporate emails, minutes of meetings, financial audits.

Outcome:

All accused were acquitted due to lack of substantive evidence. The judgment criticized poor quality of investigation and prosecution’s inability to present a strong case.

Significance:

This case highlighted how weak investigation and over-dependence on circumstantial evidence without corroboration can collapse high-profile cases.

2. Jessica Lal Murder Case – State vs. Manu Sharma

Court: Delhi High Court, 2006
Agencies: Delhi Police

Facts:

Model Jessica Lal was shot at a party by Manu Sharma (son of a politician) after she refused to serve him alcohol.

Initial Lapses:

Delhi Police botched early investigation.

Witnesses turned hostile.

Manu Sharma was acquitted by trial court due to lack of evidence.

Public and Media Pressure:

After public outrage, a reinvestigation was prompted.

Prosecution in Appeal:

Delhi High Court, relying on circumstantial and forensic evidence, reversed the acquittal.

Outcome:

Manu Sharma was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Significance:

This case showed the importance of robust prosecution and how public accountability can lead to renewed scrutiny and justice in high-profile trials.

3. Nirbhaya Gang Rape Case – Mukesh & Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020

Court: Supreme Court of India
Agencies: Delhi Police, Forensic Labs

Facts:

Brutal gang rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman in a moving bus in Delhi (2012).

Investigation:

Swift and thorough forensic investigation.

DNA evidence, CCTV, eyewitness statements matched to accused.

Charges framed under multiple IPC sections including rape, murder, and conspiracy.

Prosecution:

Built a water-tight case with scientific evidence.

Handled hostile arguments from defense lawyers.

Outcome:

All adult accused were sentenced to death and executed in 2020 after exhausting all legal remedies.

Significance:

The case showed how coordinated investigation and strong prosecution can lead to timely justice, even under immense media and political pressure.

4. Aarushi Talwar Murder Case – CBI vs. Rajesh & Nupur Talwar

Court: Allahabad High Court, 2017
Agencies: Uttar Pradesh Police (initial), then CBI

Facts:

14-year-old Aarushi and domestic help Hemraj found murdered in Noida in 2008. Her parents were accused.

Investigation:

Initial police investigation was flawed.

CBI took over and conducted two conflicting investigations—one implicating parents and another with insufficient evidence.

Prosecution:

The case went to trial based on the first CBI team’s report.

Prosecutors relied largely on circumstantial evidence.

Outcome:

Parents were convicted in 2013, but acquitted by High Court in 2017 due to "lack of conclusive evidence".

Significance:

This case reflected investigative inconsistency and prosecutorial overreach. High-profile nature led to media trials, impacting public opinion and possibly legal outcomes.

5. Sohrabuddin Sheikh Encounter Case – CBI vs. IPS Officers & Politicians

Court: CBI Court, 2018
Agencies: Gujarat Police (initial), then CBI

Facts:

Alleged fake encounter of Sohrabuddin Sheikh by Gujarat Police, with involvement of senior IPS officers and political figures.

Investigation:

Supreme Court ordered CBI probe after concerns of state interference.

CBI arrested multiple police officers, and politicians like Amit Shah were named as accused.

Prosecution:

Multiple witnesses turned hostile.

CBI alleged political pressure on witnesses.

Prosecution failed to establish conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt.

Outcome:

All 22 accused acquitted due to lack of evidence.

Significance:

Exposed how political influence can dilute witness testimony and impact prosecution strategy in high-profile political cases.

6. Sushant Singh Rajput Death Case – Under Investigation by CBI, NCB, ED

Court: Ongoing (as of last update)
Agencies: Mumbai Police (initial), CBI, ED, Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB)

Facts:

Actor Sushant Singh Rajput was found dead in 2020; initially considered suicide, later speculated as murder. The case was politicized.

Investigation:

Mumbai Police: Initially declared suicide.

CBI: Took over on Supreme Court’s directive; investigation continues.

ED: Probed financial irregularities.

NCB: Investigated drug connections in Bollywood.

Prosecution:

No formal prosecution yet; case remains in pre-trial stage.

Significance:

Illustrates how media trials, multiple agency involvement, and public opinion can impact the pace and nature of high-profile investigations.

🔚 CONCLUSION

High-profile trials test the integrity, efficiency, and independence of both investigative and prosecutorial institutions. From the 2G scam to Nirbhaya and Jessica Lal, we see how:

A strong investigation builds the backbone of a successful trial.

Prosecutors must act as officers of the court, not as political agents.

Public and media pressure can lead to reopening of cases or accelerated justice.

Failures (like in Aarushi or Sohrabuddin) highlight the dangers of bias, poor coordination, and institutional compromise.

These cases underline the need for systemic reforms in police investigation, witness protection, and prosecutorial independence to ensure justice in high-profile matters.

LEAVE A COMMENT

0 comments