With the National Police Commission pointing out, more than 30 years ago, that a very large proportion of arrests made was either illegal or unjustified, it was already obvious that the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPc) needed to be revamped. And this is precisely what the Lok Sabha did, though without debate, when it amended the CrPC in such a manner that, if the crime committed does not carry a sentence of more than seven years, the person who has committed it cannot be arrested as a first resort, as happens today. As and when the new law comes into place, the police will have to first give the accused (or suspect) a ‘notice of appearance’; only if the person fails to comply with such a notice can an arrest be made – in other words, no arrest can be made without the police going to a magistrate first.
At one level, this is an eminently desirable outcome since it will prevent (or at least minimise) harassment and extortion by the police—especially since there is nothing to suggest that the number of custodial deaths is on the decline. Not allowing arrest as a first step has the important consequence that the routine “third degree” treatment that the police metes out to suspects who are arrested, in order to extract confessions, could become less rampant. If this forces the police force to improve its crime solving methods and techniques, it would translate into a revolution in Indian policing and criminal prosecution. However, such favourable outcomes cannot be assumed when there appears to be no action taken by the police to get ready for the new reality.
At another level, given the realities of the delays in the judicial process, the new law could turn out to mean a complete perversion of justice. Consider, for instance, that many serious crimes have a sentence of seven years or less — these include kidnapping (seven years), extortion (less than seven), rash and negligent driving (two years), culpable homicide not amounting to murder (seven), and dowry harassment (up to three years). Is it really desirable that someone suspected of such crimes should not be liable to arrest as a first step? And what is the risk of people simply absconding, when served notice subsequently—especially when there is an open border with Nepal, and when so many people have no regular address or residence to which they can be traced?
Two possibilities will arise therefore, once the new law is in place. One, the police will try and book the accused under more serious charges so as to get around the seven-year rule. So, a kidnapper could get booked under kidnapping along with some other crime, may be of attempting to torture the person; an eve-teaser might get booked for rape; and so on. Within this, the police will be quick to tell judges that the person is not cooperating and so an arrest is needed. Two, people who commit such crimes will get emboldened, since they know that nothing more than a lengthy court process (which itself may not be perfect) is probably in store for them. Since neither outcome is desirable, it is incumbent upon the police/legal system to come up with solutions. The police have to learn to solve crimes without taking recourse to arrests as a first step; and the time to prosecute and convict has to be shortened.
