Prosecution of suspects is an important function in the administration of justice. So long as the prosecution is initiated in good faith and on sound evidence, and is conducted fairly, the outcome of acquittal should not be a basis for compensation. No prosecutor can predict how the evidence, when tested in cross-examination, will turn out. The solution is to provide legal aid or support criminal legal aid schemes, so the opportunity to adequately defend oneself does not become a function of available financial resources. Independent, competent counsel for the accused ensures justice is done and is seen to be done.

However, the statements by the spokesman cause grave concern. The presumption of innocence means that, until and unless the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is innocent. There is no such thing as a person who 'did the deed' but is acquitted. The acquittal means he did not 'do the deed'. If the prosecution, with the full resources of the police, the power to interrogate accused persons, interview witnesses, seize evidence and rely on various presumptions, cannot prove a case beyond reasonable doubt, then the prosecution should not cast any cloud on the acquittal of the accused.

If an accused person, without any of the above advantages, and without the right to see witness statements, the statements of his accuser or even his own statement, raises a reasonable doubt (not just any doubt), he has vindicated himself.

Our system works on the basis that the prosecution represents the interest of the people by prosecuting suspects. The defence counsel represents the accused, subject only to the bounds of professional ethics and duty to the court. The court is impartial and applies the law to the evidence. When there is an outcome, reached by due process and in accordance with the law, be it conviction or acquittal, we should all unequivocally respect that outcome. The real winner is the administration of justice.

N. Sreenivasan