The number of crime cases detected and convicted in Bangalore city is very low compared to the total number of cases registered.
The total number of cybercrime cases in Bangalore city has tripled since 2017. The detection rate in last three years has declined . Conviction rates have been consistently minimal over the years.
The Karnataka government presented data related to cyber crime cases in Bangalore city since 2017. This data was presented in the legislative assembly in response to a query raised by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) S Suresh Kumar.
The data shows that the number of cyber crime cases registered has gone up significantly since 2017. In 2017, the number of cases registered was 2742, which rose to 6226 in the current year. The number of cases detected in 2017 was 895 and in the current year, so far, only 16 cases are ready for a chargesheet. The conviction rate has been consistently low since 2017, with an average of five cases convicted per year.
“The number of detected cases is usually not updated regularly Sometimes it takes more than a year to get all the evidence for a strong case,” said Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Crime Records Bureau.
The ACP also said that the number of cases cannot be updated regularly; the time to collect proof may range from a month to even a few years. Only after that can the records be updated.
The police are not well trained to handle such cases and the nature of cyber crime cases is changing very fast. “It’s difficult for the police to find the source of the crime as the criminals have become more cautious,” says R Srinivas Gowda, Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Crime 2 branch.
R.Srinivas Gowda also said, “The police are constantly being trained; programs are held every few months to educate them in order to deal with cyber-crimes. There are many new technologies coming up every day that is why it is more difficult to find who is responsible, as the identities are hardly traceable.”
He added that convictions are difficult because judges hesitate to give judgment based on digital proofs provided.
DCP Gowda said, “The judges usually do not consider digital footprints, Internet patterns, fake ids, etc as solid evidence. There is no specific mention in the law of which proof can be considered and which can’t be accepted. Judges usually go by their discretion. ”
He added that judges are also being trained. “As the laws and policies are modified constantly, there are workshops for the judges also, where they are informed about new technologies and which evidence is on which level of acceptance,” he said.
ACP of Crime and Records Bureau explained that the police generally have to collaborate with third parties like internet service providers, delivery apps and other digital platforms. The evidence presented before the court under such investigations is generally not accepted.
Ranganath, a representative of Roots cyber security firm, Bengalurusaid that the courts usually need very solid proofs like government ID numbers, but usually criminals do not link their IDs, they usually create several layer of fake IDs. It is very difficult to link a specific person with the crime committed. It may be possible if police is able to track direct money transfer which rarely happens. So, he explained, the judge rarely imprisons cyber crime convicts, but fines them.
Govind, a resident of Kengeri said, “I got a call which claimed to be from my bank, they asked about my bank details, after few minutes Rs.10,000 were debited from my bank account. I did not even receive any one time password (OTP) during the phone call. After that, I called my bank to freeze my account. I filed an online complaint three weeks back on the Bangalore cyber crime portal, but I have not received any responses from there end.”
