Good investigations are built on proof — not guesses.

Recently, a special judge named Jitender Singh strongly criticised the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) over its case about Delhi’s excise policy.

The judge said the case seemed to be built on “conjecture” — which means guesses — instead of solid evidence. He even suggested that the officers who investigated the case should face a departmental inquiry. That’s serious.

The CBI, which India’s Supreme Court once called a “caged parrot” in 2013, says it disagrees and will appeal.

The final decision in the case could take years. In fact, the famous 2G spectrum case from 2009 is still not completely over.

But the bigger issue is this: in any country, crimes and corruption can happen.

What really matters is how well they are investigated. For example, in the United States, the case of Jeffrey Epstein caused a huge scandal.

Even though there were later controversies and cover-ups, the police in Palm Beach first did careful investigation work and collected strong evidence. Because of solid investigations like that, US prosecutors often win a very high percentage of their cases.

In India, many cases fall apart in court. In rape cases, less than one in five accused persons is convicted. In murder cases, it’s about two out of five. Often, the reason is weak or missing evidence. There was even a case in Jharkhand where a drug smuggler was freed because police said rats had eaten all 200 kg of seized drugs. Without proof, courts cannot punish anyone.

That’s why investigation agencies must aim for the highest standards. Courts need facts, not stories. And prosecutors — the lawyers who argue the case — should also demand strong evidence before going to court. Justice depends not just on catching people, but on proving the case properly.

In the end, careful evidence — not clever strategy — is what truly solves crimes.

END OF ARTICLE