Acquittal rate in New Delhi rape cases is 83%

NEW DELHI: A rape accused in India’s capital has an 83% chance of being freed by a court, an HT investigation has found. Shoddy probes, poor handling of forensic evidence and lack of an effective witness protection programme contribute to Delhi’s low conviction rate: a mere 17%, lower than the national average of 28%.

HT analysed 663 judgments delivered by special courts and posted on official websites between January 2014 and March 2015. Of the 665 accused, only 114 were found guilty. Of those acquitted, 87 rape accused were cleared because the complainants testified they had eloped with them. Why is the acquittal rate so high in a city that was the epicenter of protests after the December 16 gang rape that yielded a more stringent law? Data analysis shows systemic problems in police investigations and the process of prosecution.

After the December 16 gang rape rocked India in 2012, Delhi Police took less time in framing charges. Cases reached the courts within 71 days on average, 100 days faster than before. But HT’s data analysis shows that acquittals, too, were fast-tracked.

Prosecutors say poor investigation is a top reason. “I have understood that judges have a target to finish cases, so the moment they get to know the prose cu tr ix is going to turn hostile, that case is put on priority( for disposal),” says a lawyer who works with an NGO that focuses on sexual abuse cases. “Even if there is DNA evidence glaring at you, screaming at you, nobody questions why she’ s( victim) changed her statement before the court,” the lawyer said on condition of anonymity because of the NGO’s media policy.

Securing convictions needs corroborative evidence apart from forensic tests and the victim’s testimony. In 75% of the cases, lack of corroborative evidence proved fatal. In other cases — reflective of the immense pressure brought upon complainants — rape victims retracted from earlier testimonies. One judgment even noted a victim as saying she had been pressured by the police to file a case.

Fewer rape victims were put through a medical examination after the 16/12 gang rape. Data analysed by HT reveals forensic evidence helps courts deliver guilty verdicts. Of the 663 judgments examined, forensic evidence was mentioned in only 154 cases. But of these, 55 accused were convicted. “Shoddy investigation is the biggest reason for this failure of justice,” says former additional solicitor general Indira Jaising.

At the end of the ordeal, it is the victim who continues to suffer. One victim told HT about her experience with the prosecutor who handled her case: “When I approached my public prosecutor to show him certain aspects of my case weren’t included... he just said, ‘I have no time, we’ll find out in court… par aapne bhi mazey kiye aur usne bhi mazey kiye so what’s the point? Koi baat nahin madam, aage badiye (you had fun, he had fun, so what’s the point? Never mind madam, move on)’.”

“This is the kind of mentality that is coming, so who will fight with this?”