- The criminal justice system needs to be fixed
The criminal justice system of most common law countries requires the prosecution to prove and establish the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. A mere shadow of doubt cast on the prosecution’s version of events is suffice to secure an acquittal of an accused. The simple reason behind this principle is that a thousand guilty men may walk free but not one innocent should be incarcerated wrongly.
Ironically, the aforementioned principle is applied conversely in Pakistan. Thousands of innocents languish in our jails with no end to their miseries in sight whereas the guilty walk free. Due to a number of flaws in our criminal justice system, these poor souls endure living hell and their entire lives are ruined as a collateral of our failing system.
The absence of moral conscience is a significant factor which leads to the incarceration of an innocent person. False testimonies, as time and again stressed upon by the Supreme Court, is the single most significant factor which contributes to landing innocent people behind bars. In order to settle personal vendettas, people in our country are willing to lie under oath and falsely implicate the ones they seek to punish. Similarly, the prosecution in most cases is faulty and questionable reason why it opens doors for even the guilty to walk free. Poor evidence collection and failure to corroborate the events of a crime, as alleged, allows criminals to be free. In spite of the evident guilt of an accused, the learned judges have to let them go keeping in view the principles of law laid down in our jurisprudence developed over the past decades. At the same time, the prosecution wrongly implicates countless individuals and by fabricating testimonies and evidence, secures convictions which are eventually not sustained, However, these convictions wash away formidable years of an innocent individual wrongly implicated.
There is an immense need to reprimand and improve the competency of the trial court judges who, in their sole opinion, determine the guilt or innocence of an accused. Despite blatant contradictions in the prosecution’s allegations, a number of trial court judges proceed to award punishments for reasons best known to them. A much higher responsibility is attached to the court of a judge hearing criminal matters, as it is their prerogative to decide upon the fate of an individual. Faulty evidence should be called out and disregarded at its inception and should not be left for the superior courts to re-examine in almost each and every case.
Along with promulgation of new laws, the government should also prioritise reforming the prosecution departments nationwide. Not only would it reduce the burden on our courts but will also contribute in keeping innocent people free. Similarly, the Supreme Court, being the highest court, should also devise a strategy by virtue of which criminal appeals should be taken up at the earliest
For the sake of non-legal minds, a reference may be made to narcotics cases, where, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the single most important piece of evidence is the forensic lab report whereby it is determined that whether or not the substance recovered from an accused constitutes a narcotic drug or otherwise. Naturally, no man could determine with certainty as to whether a substance is a narcotic drug, therefore the law provides for samples being tested by a forensic lab expert so as to secure the interest of justice. In order to further rule out any mischief, the narcotics rules further provide a prescribed form upon which the lab report should be prepared. Such lab reports are required to include the full details of all the protocols applied to the tested product so as to rule out even the slightest shadow of doubt. In spite of the mandatory nature of the lab report being prepared on the prescribed form, there are numerous cases in which a conviction has been secured and even sustained by the High Court wherein the forensic lab report is not only dubious but casts a significant shadow of doubt, the benefit of which should be extended to an accused, not as grace but rather as a matter of right.
The prosecution’s failure coupled with the incompetency of trial court judges lands a man in prison, for a crime he didn’t commit. The simple level of competence required to analyse and see through the material present is lacking and serious attention needs to be drawn to it.
No wonder the acquittal rate by the apex court remains quite high as the lordships see through the fabricated testimonies and determine the innocence of an accused. Though some of these victims do find relief at the hands of the highest court of the land, the question is, what role is to be attributed to the other courts within the judicial hierarchy?
For instance, any death sentence awarded by a trial court is subject to confirmation by a divisional bench of the concerned High Court. In the event of an accused on death row being acquitted by the Supreme Court, how does such an acquittal reflect upon the High Court which had in the first instance confirmed the death sentence? Once the Supreme Court has established that an accused was wrongly convicted, will it not cast a serious doubt upon the competence and legitimacy of the High Court below? Would the confirmation of a death sentence not amount to an attempted murder?
Along with promulgation of new laws, the government should also prioritise reforming the prosecution departments nationwide. Not only would it reduce the burden on our courts but will also contribute in keeping innocent people free. Similarly, the Supreme Court, being the highest court, should also devise a strategy by virtue of which criminal appeals should be taken up at the earliest. There are examples where innocent men with strong grounds of appeal have been awaiting their turn before the Supreme Court for years and their cries are yet to be heard. Some rare cases have even seen the appellants having been executed beforehand, only to be acquitted posthumously.
The Qazis of today need to be reminded that the actual judgement for all is yet to come. Those with the power to judge others today will be standing in a much Higher Court to be judged where they shall be answerable for every word that they dictate today as judges.
