Frequent acquittals reflect systemic failure

Over the past few months, Indian trial courts have delivered a series of acquittals in serious criminal cases, often accompanied by pointed observations on investigative and prosecutorial shortcomings. In one recent January verdict, a Delhi court acquitted a man accused of attempting to murder a dhaba owner, observing that the prosecution had failed to establish intent beyond reasonable doubt and that witness testimony lacked consistency. In another long-running murder trial, the court cited gaps in the chain of evidence and the absence of reliable forensic corroboration before returning an acquittal.

Courts have repeatedly emphasised a foundational principle of criminal law, suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof. When investigations are poorly documented, evidence is incomplete or witnesses are unreliable, acquittal becomes the only legally defensible outcome. Yet each such verdict tends to provoke a familiar public reaction. Acquittals are framed as failures of justice, courts are accused of leniency, and demands resurface for harsher laws and tougher punishment.

What often goes unexamined is a more uncomfortable question. Why do so many serious criminal cases reach trial in a condition that makes conviction difficult, sometimes impossible?

These outcomes are not isolated. They reflect structural constraints within India’s criminal justice process, particularly at the stages of investigation and prosecution. The latest official crime data lends weight to what courtrooms across the country reveal with striking regularity.

The most recent comprehensive national dataset is the National Crime Records Bureau’s Crime in India 2023 report, published in late 2025. While the figures relate to crimes recorded two years earlier, they remain valuable for assessing institutional performance rather than short-term trends. The data shows that conviction rates across major categories of Indian Penal Code offences remain modest, with a substantial proportion of cases ending in acquittal or discharge.

The report also highlights persistent pendency. A significant share of registered cases remains under investigation at the end of the year, while many that do proceed to trial take years to conclude. Courts continue to face heavy backlogs, and undertrial populations remain high. Delay is no longer an exception within the system. It has become a defining feature.

It would be misleading to interpret these outcomes primarily as judicial failure. Courts decide cases on the basis of evidence placed before them, applying settled standards of proof. Where evidence falls short, acquittal is not a matter of discretion but of legal obligation. Blaming courts for enforcing evidentiary thresholds obscures the real source of the problem.

Judicial reasoning in acquittal orders reveals recurring concerns. Courts frequently refer to contradictions in witness testimony, weaknesses in evidentiary linkage, delayed or inconclusive forensic reports and the absence of corroboration necessary to meet the threshold of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. While there is no national dataset categorising reasons for acquittal, these themes recur across jurisdictions and offence categories.

The structure of India’s criminal justice system helps explain this pattern. In theory, policing, prosecution and adjudication function as a coordinated sequence. In practice, they operate with limited integration. Investigations are often conducted with minimal prosecutorial involvement, increasing the risk that evidentiary requirements at trial are not adequately anticipated. Prosecutors typically engage after chargesheets are filed, inheriting cases rather than shaping them. By the time weaknesses become apparent, they are often beyond repair.

NCRB data suggests that delays and bottlenecks emerge well before cases reach adjudication. Pendency during investigation remains substantial, and forensic capacity constraints affect the timely production of scientific evidence. As proceedings stretch over years, witness reliability weakens, memories fade and the probability of conviction diminishes. Delay, in effect, becomes a silent but powerful defence.

These structural weaknesses have direct implications for deterrence — a concept frequently oversimplified in public discourse. Deterrence is often equated with the severity of punishment, leading to demands for stricter laws whenever acquittals attract attention. But deterrence depends at least as much on the certainty of punishment as on its harshness.

When the likelihood of conviction is low and proceedings are prolonged, the deterrent effect of criminal law is diluted, regardless of the penalties prescribed. India’s legislative history illustrates this disconnect. Over time, penalties have been enhanced across a wide range of offences, from violent crime to economic wrongdoing. Yet conviction rates have not risen proportionately. Legal ambition has outpaced institutional capacity.

This gap has broader consequences for public trust. Victims endure prolonged uncertainty and procedural fatigue. Accused persons often spend years in undertrial detention before eventual acquittal, raising concerns of fairness as well as efficiency. Police credibility suffers when cases collapse at trial. Courts attract criticism for outcomes rooted in deficiencies beyond their control. Over time, confidence in the justice system erodes.

At the same time, the data does not suggest indifference or inaction. Case registration has increased in several categories, reflecting improved reporting and access to the justice system. But higher registration without parallel investment in investigation quality and prosecutorial capacity risks compounding existing strain rather than delivering justice.

The challenge is therefore not merely one of resources, but of institutional design and incentives. Policing systems continue to reward arrests and case closures more than evidentiary robustness. Prosecutorial services remain understaffed and overburdened. Forensic laboratories operate under chronic capacity constraints. Coordination across agencies is uneven, particularly in complex or long-running cases.

If deterrence is the objective, reform must focus on these less visible but more consequential elements.

Greater prosecutorial involvement at the investigation stage would help ensure that evidence collection aligns with trial requirements. Forensic infrastructure requires sustained investment to enable timely, reliable analysis. Performance metrics within policing must shift away from raw output towards the durability of prosecutions. Witness support mechanisms and faster trial processes are essential to preserving evidentiary integrity over time.

Equally important is transparency in crime and justice data. Delays in publishing national statistics limit informed debate and weaken evidence-based policy responses. More timely and granular data on investigation outcomes, prosecution performance and trial duration would allow targeted reform rather than broad attribution of blame.

Recent acquittals should not be read as failures of courts to punish. They should be read as indicators of a system that struggles to deliver cases capable of meeting its own legal standards.

If India is serious about deterrence, the answer does not lie in louder demands for severity. It lies in the harder work of strengthening investigation, prosecution and institutional coordination so that justice is not only promised, but reliably delivered.

Certainty, not cruelty, is what ultimately deters crime.

The writer is a legal affairs commentator and columnist. She writes on law, governance, and institutional reform.