What makes or breaks a case

Hanumangarh, Rajasthan: Testimony was underway that day in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act court in Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. The case involved the recovery of narcotics. A police constable stood in the witness box since he was considered a key witness in the matter. The Public Prosecutor questioned him. The constable replied, "I know nothing about it. I had stepped away at that moment to relieve myself."

A stunned silence fell over the courtroom for a few moments. This was the very case in which the same police constable had been cited as an eyewitness to the recovery. Advocate Dinesh Kumar Dadhich, who was arguing the case as a Special Public Prosecutor at the time, still vividly recalls that day. He told 101Reporters that, for a fleeting moment, it felt as though the entire case had slipped through their fingers. However, relying on other corroborating evidence, they managed to salvage it.

This is not merely an isolated incident, it offers a glimpse into the world in which a Public Prosecutor operates on a daily basis — a world where every case is not solely a matter of law, but rather a complex interplay of the legal system, procedural protocols, and human behaviour.

Dadhich completed his LLB in 2001 and began practising criminal law that very April. Based on his extensive legal experience, he was appointed as a Public Prosecutor on two separate occasions, first as a Special Public Prosecutor in the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (I) from 2009 to 2014, and subsequently in the Special Court (NDPS Act Cases) from 2019 to 2025. He is currently engaged in private legal practice. Over the course of this tenure, he handled thousands of cases. 101 Reporters interviewed Dadhich to gain a deeper understanding of the inherent difficulties and challenges involved in the work of a Public Prosecutor.

450 cases, one prosecutor

This is a common situation for everyone, the volume of pending cases in the courts is extremely high. There are no vacant posts. Each court has its own designated Public Prosecutor. In Rajasthan, Public Prosecutors are appointed in two ways: those selected through a competitive examination when vacancies are announced, and those appointed by the state government for a fixed tenure based on their legal practice experience. Lawyers appointed on the basis of experience face their own distinct set of challenges.

Dadhich explains that such Public Prosecutors receive comparatively lower remuneration. Their total income, combining their monthly salary and daily incentives, amounts to approximately Rs 36,000 to Rs 39,000 rupees. In contrast, the salary of regular government lawyers can range from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 2 lakh.

The difference is not limited to salary alone. When an experience-based Public Prosecutor joins a court, they are immediately confronted with a caseload of 400 to 450 cases. They face an equal number of opposing lawyers while standing alone on their side. This imbalance affects not only the workload but also the quality of justice delivered.

These cases involve charges such as murder, rape, kidnapping, offences under the NDPS Act, and other serious crimes. Each case demands a unique approach to preparation, yet time is a scarce commodity. Many times, the case file is received on the very day arguments are scheduled.

In the courtroom

The role of a Public Prosecutor is typically perceived as primarily involving arguments in court. Dadhich, however, offered a different perspective. He pointed out that half their time is spent not on arguing, but on management, deciding which case to take up first, identifying which cases have witnesses present, determining which ones require adjournment.

The number of pending cases in most courts is already staggering. The non-appearance of witnesses, the transfer of police officers, and delays in obtaining forensic reports all combine to create a vicious cycle in which cases drag on for years. At times, an entire day can be consumed by recording the statement of a single witness. A Public Prosecutor is often required to manage dozens of cases simultaneously, the absence of witnesses, repeated adjournments, and ever-growing piles of case files constitute the underlying reality behind the “arguments” visible within the courtroom.

The work of a Public Prosecutor is fundamentally predicated upon police investigation. They do not conduct independent investigations, rather, they present their case based on the charge sheets and evidence compiled by the police. Dadhich said that the entire edifice of the prosecution's argument rests on police investigation. If there are flaws or deficiencies in that investigation, handling such cases in court becomes extremely difficult.

Prior to the filing of a charge sheet, the police frequently seek the opinion of the prosecution. During this process, the Public Prosecutor reviews the case file and points out any deficiencies. It is not guaranteed that these will be rectified in every instance.

Dadhich stated that, through his efforts, the system of prosecution review, previously confined to the lower courts, was extended to Sessions Courts presiding over cases under the NDPS Act, the SC/ST Act, and the POCSO Act. While this has improved the quality of cases to some extent, the underlying problem has not been entirely resolved. Officials within the Prosecution Department opposed the move; they were reluctant to allow experience-based Public Prosecutors to undertake this role within Sessions Courts.

The Public Prosecutor is often described as a “representative of justice”. But, in practice, they function as counsel for the state. Dadhich noted that every Public Prosecutor may internally feel that their objective is to secure a conviction against the accused. In reality, their mandate is not to secure a conviction, but to present the relevant facts before the court. The ultimate verdict rests with the court.

There are instances where a case may appear weak to the prosecutor personally, yet they remain professionally obligated to present it with full vigour on behalf of the state, he said adding that this aspect is one of the most challenging of the profession – a point where personal judgment and professional duty come into conflict.

Hearings involving murder, sexual offences, and cases concerning children are not merely legal proceedings, they also carry a profound emotional weight. Dadhich recounted that on one occasion, he listened to the testimony of a minor rape survivor. For several days afterwards, he was unable to sleep properly. "I now practise independently, but I steer clear of such cases. No matter how substantial the fee, I do not take on these matters."

Within the judicial system, he observed, no one has the time, or the capacity, to concern themselves with anyone's mental well-being.

Technicalities of NDPS procedure

The law governing narcotics-related offences is stringent, yet its procedural aspects are highly technical. Even a minor error during the search and seizure process can significantly weaken an entire case, he explained. Consequently, accused individuals are often acquitted on technical grounds, a phenomenon that sparks resentment within society. People assume that the accused has "gotten away with it," failing to realise that the law demands concrete evidence; convictions cannot be secured on suspicion alone.

In the Hanumangarh district and its surrounding areas, the nature of drug abuse has undergone a transformation. Previously, traditional intoxicants such as opium and poppy derivatives were prevalent, now heroin and "smack" have replaced them. The use of injectable drugs has increased significantly, further intensifying the severity of the problem.

Against this backdrop, a deep-seated dissatisfaction pervades society. People demand the eradication of drug abuse and severe punishment for traffickers. This explains why, whenever an accused individual in an NDPS Act case is acquitted on technical grounds, it triggers public outrage. On one hand, the law demands evidence; on the other, society demands results.

What undid a case

Dadhich also recounted a case in which a minor procedural inconsistency proved immensely costly. A woman had sustained severe burns in a fire. Initially, she told the police that the incident was accidental. She later accused her in-laws in her statement before a magistrate. She subsequently died, and the case was reclassified as a murder investigation.

The charge sheet submitted by the police to the court contained only the magistrate's statement, whereas the case file handed to Dadhich contained both statements. The defence counsel seized upon this contradiction. The court acquitted the accused, granting them the benefit of the doubt.

This case, Dadhich pointed out, was not merely about a technical lapse, it illustrated how the disconnect between truth, procedure, and presentation can profoundly affect the delivery of justice.

The outcome

The role of a Public Prosecutor is not merely to secure a conviction, but to ensure that justice is served. But is this always possible? Dadhich said that while every Public Prosecutor strives to present the true facts before the court, the system itself has inherent limitations. Often, despite everything being done correctly, the outcome does not align with what it ought to be. This, he noted, is the greatest truth of the profession.

Every case serves as a test, not merely of the law, but of the system itself. Justice is not determined solely within the courtroom; it is the cumulative outcome of investigation, evidence, witnesses, and procedure. Public Prosecutors, working within this framework, strive each day to ensure that the truth reaches the court,  yet justice is not determined by their efforts alone. It is the outcome of an entire chain of processes, one in which the strength of every single link is essential.

(Amarpal Singh Verma is a freelance journalist and a member of 101Reporters.) 

This story has been produced by 101Reporters, an independent news agency with a network of 3,000+ freelance journalists across the country, in collaboration with Crime & Punishment, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.