The Missing Spine

Two recent acquittals in terror cases investigated by the Maharashtra police have reignited a debate that is as old as modern Indian policing itself — why do so many high-profile investigations collapse in court, despite the enormous cost, human effort, and political attention they command? It is easy to pin the blame on technicalities, hostile witnesses, or “judicial leniency.” But the truth is far more uncomfortable and systemic: the twin failures of forensic deficiencies and a lack of investigative mindset.

And this malaise is not confined to terrorism investigations alone. It runs like a quiet but corrosive thread through probes into heinous crimes — rape, murder, organised criminal activity — and even the labyrinthine financial fraud cases that drain our economy. The pathology is national in scope, cutting across states, agencies, and political dispensations.

The acquittals in the Maharashtra cases — whatever their specific merits or evidentiary shortcomings — are not isolated mishaps. They are part of a broader pattern where the initial headlines scream breakthrough, but the court’s verdict years later quietly erases the promise of justice.

The Forensic Gap

Forensic science is not an exotic luxury in modern investigation; it is the backbone of any credible, court-proof case. From DNA profiling to ballistic examination, from call data record (CDR) analysis to cyber forensics, science has transformed the way truth can be established beyond reasonable doubt.

And yet, in India, forensic use remains tokenistic. It is deployed after an investigation hits a wall, rather than being integrated from day one. Laboratories are understaffed, under-funded, and overburdened with months-long backlogs. The chain of custody is often broken due to sloppy handling of exhibits. Critical evidence is sometimes contaminated or rendered inadmissible because standard operating procedures (SOPs) are not followed.

What’s worse is that in many cases investigators themselves do not trust or know how to use forensic resources effectively. Scientific evidence is treated as an “optional extra,” rather than the spine of the prosecution’s case. In terrorism investigations — where witness intimidation is common and circumstantial evidence is fragile — forensics should be the primary source of proof. Instead, it often plays a secondary role.

A veteran forensic scientist once lamented, “We get the call when the case is already in the media glare, and the investigating officer wants a report in 48 hours. But science takes time — and evidence degrades if it is not preserved from the start.”

This underuse is not purely a resource problem; it is also a mindset problem. Investigators trained in the old-school mould rely more on confessions, custodial interrogations, and “intuition” rather than methodical evidence-building.

The Mindset Deficiency

The lack of investigative mindset is perhaps more damaging than the lack of forensic resources. Mindset is not about intelligence or hard work — it is about approach, discipline, and accountability.

A capable investigating officer thinks like a chess player — anticipating the defence’s moves, securing every possible strand of evidence, cross-checking facts, and keeping a tight grip on timelines. But in practice, many investigations in India drift. FIRs are registered with broad strokes but little precision. Interrogations meander without strategy. Statements are recorded late, giving defence lawyers ample scope to poke holes in them.

Part of this stems from workload. An SHO or ACP handling a major crime is often juggling routine law-and-order duties, VIP security arrangements, and dozens of smaller cases. Focus is lost.

But a larger part stems from leadership culture. Outstanding investigations rarely happen in a vacuum; they are almost always driven by leaders who set high standards, insist on forensic use, and personally monitor progress. Without such leadership, the default setting is mediocrity.

The result? When the case finally reaches trial, the judge is confronted with half-baked evidence, contradictory witness statements, and forensic reports that either arrived too late or were not persuasive enough. The benefit of doubt then inevitably goes to the accused — as it should in a fair justice system. But the public is left disillusioned, and the investigating agency’s credibility takes another hit.

Bulandshahr Conviction: A Spark of Hope

Yet, the story is not all bleak. The recent conviction by the trial court into the killing of a Station House Officer (SHO) in Bulandshahr in UP is a reminder that the system is not dead — it only needs galvanising.

The SHO was killed in a violent confrontation that could have easily descended into a long, politically messy investigation. But immediately after the crime, police leadership acted with urgency and clarity. The crime scene was preserved immediately. Forensic teams were deployed at the earliest. Mobile tower data was extracted in the first 24 hours, narrowing down suspects. Local intelligence units worked in tandem with cyber-cell analysts. Within days, the investigative jigsaw began to take shape.

It was not just the speed — it was the method. The investigation used a blend of traditional policing and scientific analysis. Witness statements were corroborated with digital trails. Physical evidence was processed quickly and professionally. The leadership monitored progress daily, ensuring there were no procedural lapses that could later be exploited in court.

The result was a case that moved from crime to chargesheet with rare precision. The conviction by the trial court in the first week of this month certainly indicates that the process stands as a model of how capability can be unleashed when the system is led, not left to drift.

Universal Lessons

It is tempting to treat terror investigations as a special category — but in truth, the investigative principles are the same, whether one is probing a bombing, a sexual assault, or a bank fraud. The stakes differ, the political sensitivities vary, but the recipe for a successful investigation is identical:

1. Early integration of forensics: Preserve and process evidence from the first hour.

2. Timely witness examination: Reduce the scope for recantation or defence exploitation.

3. Tight procedural discipline: Maintain chain of custody, proper documentation, and chronological records.

4. Leadership monitoring: Ensure accountability and regular progress reviews.

5. Inter-agency coordination: Share intelligence and resources, especially in complex cases.

Financial crime cases offer their own cautionary tales. The failure to analyse digital evidence quickly can allow suspects to move assets beyond reach. In rape cases, delays in medical examination often doom the prosecution before it starts. In organised crime, weak documentation of surveillance work leads to acquittals.

These are not abstract “systemic flaws” — they are tangible failures, often rooted in a lack of mindset to use available tools to their fullest potential.

Reforming the Investigative Culture

If India is to break the cycle of high-profile arrests followed by quiet acquittals, it must address both the forensic gap and the mindset deficiency. That means:

• Investment in Forensic Infrastructure: New labs, more trained personnel, and better equipment.

• Mandatory Forensic Protocols: In certain categories of crime, forensic evidence collection should be a statutory requirement, not a discretionary choice. The new criminal laws have the provisions to such effects.

• Training and Continuous Learning: Investigators need hands-on exposure to forensic techniques, cyber tools, and case-building strategies.

• Leadership Appraisal Linked to Case Outcomes: Not in terms of conviction rates alone, but in terms of procedural soundness and timeliness.

• Public and Political Will: A recognition that justice is not served by quick arrests and press conferences, but by sustainable convictions in court.

The Bulandshahr example shows that when leadership demands excellence and supports its teams with resources, the old lethargy can be replaced with professional rigour. The same template can be applied to investigations of heinous crimes — indeed, any investigation where truth must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The two recent acquittals in Maharashtra are not anomalies; they are symptoms. They reflect a chronic underuse of forensics and a deeper cultural malaise in investigative mindset. But they also remind us of the stakes — every failed prosecution is not just a professional embarrassment; it is a blow to public trust in justice.

India’s investigative system is not beyond repair. It does not require an entirely new architecture, but it does require a new operating philosophy. Forensics must be embedded, not appended. Mindset must shift from reactive to proactive. Leadership must move from passive oversight to active stewardship.

The Bulandshahr case proves that when leadership galvanises the machinery, results follow. The challenge is to make such leadership the norm rather than the exception. Until then, acquittals will continue to punctuate our headlines — and justice will remain as much a victim as the crimes themselves.

The writer, former DGP, Uttar Pradesh, is currently an advisor on child protection in Delhi. Views expressed are personal