The real picture behind our crime statistics

The National Crime Records Bureau has just released ‘Crime in India 2010’. NCRB will have to be complimented for bringing it out in quick time. In the past, at least two years elapsed between the occurrence of crime and its official reporting nationally. The bureau is at the mercy of state police organisations to obtain figures and collate them into an understandable compendium that should form the basis for policy making in criminal justice. NCRB does not make any extravagant claim that the report is 100% reliable. If the state police forces bungle the process or dishonestly massage the statistics, the NCRB cannot be faulted.
Distortions in registering crime occur at two levels. First, no chief minister wants to admit that crime had gone up under his or her regime. The issue has become so politicised that any discussion of crime is highly disoriented and tendentious. The second level is police stations, whose officers are concerned that they are not blamed for any abnormal spurt in crime in their jurisdiction. This is the genesis of the obnoxious practice of non-registration of crime even when it is cognisable. This is endemic in the Indian police system, and several efforts to ensure honest recording of crime by means of an FIR have failed. The few DGPs who had in the past ordered free registration of crime had come to grief, either at the hands of the rest of their own forces or political masters. A shameful fact is there is hardly a police station in the country that does not demand a bribe to register crime. This barbaric situation reduces the credibility of official crime figures. We can therefore safely assume that only 50% of actual crime goes into official records.

The year 2010 shows a marginal rise (1.1%) in overall crime. There were 67.5 lakh cognisable cases registered last year. But what an average law abiding citizen should worry about are offences against the body, which went up by 5%. India reports an average of 30,000 to 35,000 homicides annually. There were 33,335 murders in 2010, a 3% increase over 2009. Uttar Pradesh and Bihar accounted for 7,763 of them. Attempts to murder — nearly 29,000 — are also a cause of worry.

While the police cannot generally be blamed for a rise in homicides, a permissive attitude, like delay in registering an FIR or in arresting the known accused, and deliberate flaws in investigation (faulty inquests, doctoring post-mortem reports, etc) promote a licence to commit murders among those who have a violent disposition. Judicial corruption and leniency are other factors that have an impact on the incidence of violent crime in a geographical area.

We should be equally concerned about crimes against women. There are no doubt regional variations. Some states are lax and permissive, while others are slightly more sensitive. Media attention has helped a lot. During 2010, there were 2,13,585 offences against women. This is a 5% rise over 2009. What should receive national attention is the incidence of rapes and their handling. More than 22,000 rapes were reported in the whole country, a 3% rise. The highest number (3,135) was from Madhya Pradesh. Investigation of rapes is a highly contentious process the world over. The Indian scene is especially unsatisfactory. The stigma attached to admission of rapes by victims casts a huge shadow over the reliability of rape figures. The general assumption is that nearly one-third of actual occurrences go unreported. What compounds the situation is the poor quality of prosecution in courts. Acquittals are of enormous proportion, sometimes as high as 80% in a few states. The buying up of crucial witnesses, including the victim, is a highly known despicable practice. The apex court has on many occasions come down heavily on the tendency of lower courts to acquit an accused at the slightest of opportunities. It has been repeatedly emphasised that when a victim sounds highly credible, the quantum of corroborative evidence sought need not be high. Actually, under strong circumstances of guilt, a conviction could be based solely on the testimony of a victim. I am not very sure whether such a liberal application of the law of evidence has helped. What is most noteworthy and actionable is the fact that in nearly 97% of rapes reported during 2010, the offenders were known to the victims. This shows how strict precautions in terms of protection could possibly help reduce the incidence of this abominable crime.

Crimes against property showed only a marginal increase of 1%. In reality this does not mean much. Reporting of crime here is a tortuous process, and many victims do not go to the police, unless the property lost is of very high value. This is why I will not attach much importance to a fall or rise in property crime figures. The phenomenal expansion of private security arrangements to guard business premises and apartment complexes has no doubt contributed to a real drop in victimisation. This is, of course, an essentially urban phenomenon, and figures of crime registered by the police may not actually reflect an improvement in the situation. Target hardening of houses through the use of alarm and similar devices can bring about a greater sense of security. I am appalled at the lack of awareness in that area. Builders need to be brought under some legislation so that they are obligated to install strong security devices before they sell houses or apartments.

Crime in India is a useful annual publication. I am, however, pained by the fact that policymakers do not care much for it. There is hope for change only if the media debates it continually and brings home the point that without public support, prevention and detection of crime will never show the kind of qualitative improvement that we witness in many developed nations.

The writer is a former Director of Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi