MUMBAI: A National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) report has shown a decrease in recovery of property stolen in the country, with 19.5% in 2012, against 28.5% in 2011. It has shown a sharp fall in recovery in Maharashtra with 1.6% in 2012 against 12.1% in 2011.
The break-up in terms of recovery of stolen property has showed dacoity tops with an average of 65% from 2010 to 2012, followed by robbery (40%), burglary (22%) and thefts (30%), while the least recovery is in crimes registered under Indian Penal Code sections for criminal breach of trust and other property offences, where the percentage in 2012 is 1.6% and 1.4% respectively.
Investigators said criminal breach of trust and other property offences directly had affected overall recovery percentages. Similar has been the case with Mumbai, with recovery of stolen property falling from 16.7% in 2010 to 10.4% in 2011 and 0.8% in 2012.
The NCRB report said Andhra Pradesh (50%) was best when it came to recovery, followed by Karnataka (40%), Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh (35%).
Among cities, Mumbai fared better in 2010 and 2011 and it dipped drastically in 2012. Jaipur, Bengaluru and Kolkata had better recovery percentages. Recovery of stolen property data was mostly specific to offences of robbery, dacoity, theft and housebreak-in. It is not specific to cheating and criminal breach of trust. To detect crimes of housebreak-in and theft, where the identity of the accused is unknown, is an uphill task.
“Property involved in such crimes is often of low value, compared to criminal breach of trust and cheating. Hence, even if there’s recovery, it is not reflected in the total percentage,” former IPS officer-turned-lawyer Y P Singh said.
Joint commissioner of police (crime) Himanshu Roy said, “We have a good detection rate in cases of robbery, theft, and house break-in, where gold valuables and other costly goods are recovered. It is difficult to recover money as criminals spend it. Also, cases like criminal breach of trust, cheating and forgery, where recovery is lower, it directly affects the detection rate in other property-related offences.”
A senior retired cop said today’s force is inefficient in tracking down accused in cases where their identity is not known. Often, such cases get detected when a habitual offender gets arrested in one case, and the modus operandi is analyzed to detect past offences through his interrogation. Quality detection of property offences by unknown criminals is woefully inadequate.