The murder of dalit law student Jisha came as a shock to the society. That concerned authorities had not taken seriously her earlier complaints and apprehensions about her personal safety, made the crime much more shocking. The police failed miserably, first in preventing a crime and then while collecting evidence after the crime was committed.
However, after a special team took over the investigation, its progress was marred by trials by the media. Often, the interventions of the media were unwarranted, irresponsible and overbearing. Politicians also used the situation well to their own advantage. While such behaviour could be scrutinised for propriety later, they affected the morale of the new investigating team and has affected their progress in the case.
In Kerala, community policing was much touted for its ability to prevent crime. In this perspective, Janamaitri Police would be much more effective in interior, rural areas of the state than the cities and towns. This means, more than in Kochi where the police can be accessed by a phone call, Janamaitri Police should be more equipped in areas where accessibility of law enforcing agencies is quite restricted due to various factors. The Jisha murder case unfortunately shows that community policing has failed.
More shocking was the belligerence of the press and the trial by media. There are existing legal norms that prevent photographs of suspects being published before an identification parade is completed. The two hundredth Law Commission aired its apprehensions that activism by the media infringes on the rights of witnesses, complainants, alleged criminals and even law enforcers. The airing of "India's Daughter" even when the Nirbhaya case was under consideration of the court, was considered by many as an affront to the legal codes and systems of India.
All crimes are neither equal nor are the methodology used to commit them the same. For that reason, criminals could be booked in a day or their arrest could be protracted because of conditions that are beyond the control of investigating officers. However, investigating agencies have the right to be free from influences of impatient politicians and public who need quick results, irrespective of the nature of the crime. People need to understand that criminal cases are not something that can be won by debates on media. The American Supreme Court had, in the Bridges Vs California case, opined that judgements are not won as in public meetings and debates. In the US, propaganda and assumptions about criminals have led to cancellation of trials in many instances.
After the brutal murder of Jisha, the media complained that investigations were getting delayed. This is very immature on the part of the media. While the media tried to criticise the investigation agencies without even understanding the basics of investigative procedures, they assumed the role of the agencies and found out 'witnesses' and aired their 'statements.' All these point to a dangerous lack of etiquette in the visual media. Even channel discussions bordered on assumptions about the criminal. Politicians used the opportunity to score points and even belittled policemen who released the first sketch of the alleged criminal by calling them 'artists.'
In fact, the special team was trying to make up for the initial flaws with careful and planned investigations. It is not proper to attribute the faults of the police officers who first investigated the case on the newly-formed investigation team. A developed society should let investigative officers do their duty in peace. Rather than hoarse cries of agitation, responsible silence is far more productive in many cases. Let the investigators do their duties in a scientific manner, with full freedom.
(The author is an advocate in the Supreme Court as well as the Kerala High Court.)