There is rising impression in the Pakistan that the accused get scot free from the Courts. This impression is not in vacuum. There are factors contributing to it. This impression finds support too from the low conviction rate in our country. In Pakistan, the conviction rate is 8.66%, while the conviction rate in India is 37.4%, in England (Crown Court) 90%, and in Japan, it is 99.9%. These figures tend to show that in Pakistan, the Justice prevails, when 91% of the accused persons, after facing the agony of trial, are acquitted by the courts. It not only encourages a criminal to dare repeat the crime, but also results in loss of faith of the victim, his family and society at large, over the Criminal Justice System of Pakistan. The low conviction rate is directly proportional to the wrongs committed during investigation, and indirectly with defective prosecution in Pakistan. However, blaming the courts for acquittal of the accused is not justifiable. The courts are deciding the cases on basis of whatever evidence and material is produced before them, which is collected by the investigating agencies. The courts are not meant for recording convictions only, but for the dispensation of even-handed justice. If the investigation is defective, the prosecution is lethargic, if there is scanty evidence, if witnesses turn hostile, whether the court is left with any other option except to give accused the benefit of doubt. The law requires proof beyond any reasonable doubt. This probative value of high degree is not possible unless the evidence is collected by the agency without leaving anything unturned. Given this backdrop, in this article, we have tried to discuss the impact of defective investigation and defective prosecution on trial. The article is also aimed at finding out as to what can be done for improving the current situation. The conclusion would show that the courts cannot be blamed for low conviction rate when the police, prosecutors and executive authorities fail to discharge their duty.
| Published in | Social Sciences (Volume 9, Issue 6) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ss.20200906.17 |
| Page(s) | 265-268 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Conviction Rate, Acquittal, Defective Investigation, Defective Prosecution
| [1] | Report on Elimination of False Evidence from the Judicial System in Pakistan; law and justice commission of Pakistan retrieved from http://www.ljcp.gov.pk/Menu%20Items/Publications/Reports%20of%20the%20LJCP/reports/report07.htm |
| [2] | Allan Chester Johnson, P. R.-N. (1961). Ancient Roman statutes. Texas: University of Texas Press. |
| [3] | Coleman Karesh Law Library, A Quick Primer on the World's Legal Systems., University of South Carolina, School of law, retrieved from http://guides.law.sc.edu/c.php?g=315476&p=2108388 |
| [4] | Mehmood Ali and 3 others v. The State (2015 M L D 1560 [Lahore]) and (2015 SCMR 882, C.M.A. NO. 3854 of 2014 in Suo Motu Case No. 3 OF 2009. |
| [5] | The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 Articles, 189, 201 and 203 GG. |
| [6] | World Justice Project, USA, Andersen, E., & Ponce, A. (Eds.). (2020, March). The World Justice Project Rule of Law Index® 2020 (No. 978-1-951330-35–4). World Justice Project. https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/documents/WJP-ROLI-2020-Online_0.pdf |
| [7] | Ejaz v. The State and 10 others (2017 Y L R Note 342 [Lahore (Multan Bench)]. |
| [8] | Debesu, Kahsay, and Andualem Eshetu. “Meaning, Nature and Purpose of Evidence Law.” Abyssinialaw, 4 Sept. 2012, retrieved from www.abyssinialaw.com/about-us/item/932-meaning-and-nature-of-evidence-law. |
| [9] | Reforming the Criminal Justice System of Pakistan (Asia Report No. 196) by the International Crisis Group retrieved from http://www.crisisgroup.org//media/Files/asia/southasia/pakistan/196%20Reforming%20Pakistans%20Criminal%20Justice%20 System.pdf |
| [10] | Noor Hassan alias Noora and another v. The State (2019 M L D 1671 [Islamabad]). |
| [11] | Counting the Condemned (Rep.). (2018). Retrieved from https://www.jpp.org.pk/report/counting-the-condemned/ |
| [12] | Waqar Ahmad v. The State and another (P L D 2016 Peshawar 21). |
| [13] | Ishikawa, K., Ngo Mandeng, P., Sharma, M., & Mwalili, J. (n.d.). ISSUES CONCERNING PROSECUTION IN RELATION TO CONVICTION, SPEEDY TRIAL AND SENTENCING (Rep.). Retrieved from https://www.unafei.or.jp/publications/pdf/RS_No53/No53_31RC_Group3.pdf107th International Training Course, P. 348-367. |
| [14] | Dawn (2010), “Low conviction rate”, (2010, April 21) retrieved from http://www.dawn.com/news/843202. |
| [15] | Dawn (2016), “High acquittal rate in Sindh district courts in 2015”, (2016, Jan 03), retrieved from http://www.dawn.com/news/1230309 |
| [16] | Watan Party and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others (P L D 2011 Supreme Court 997). |
| [17] | State v. Abdul Khaliq (PLD 2011 SC 554). |
| [18] | PILDAT, Current State of Prosecution Services. (2016). Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development And Transparency - PILDAT, 6, Retrieved from http://www.millat.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/democracy/ProsecutionServicesandMediainPakistan_MediaBrief.pdf |
| [19] | Waheed, M. A. (n.d.). VICTIMS OF CRIME IN PAKISTAN. Human Rights Documents Online, 138-148. doi: 10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9955-0014; THE 144th INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR PARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS. |
APA Style
Muhammad Arif Rajput, Muhammad Riaz Rajput. (2020). Impact of Defective Investigation and Prosecution on Trial. Social Sciences, 9(6), 265-268. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200906.17
ACS Style
Muhammad Arif Rajput; Muhammad Riaz Rajput. Impact of Defective Investigation and Prosecution on Trial. Soc. Sci. 2020, 9(6), 265-268. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20200906.17
AMA Style
Muhammad Arif Rajput, Muhammad Riaz Rajput. Impact of Defective Investigation and Prosecution on Trial. Soc Sci. 2020;9(6):265-268. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20200906.17
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ss.20200906.17,
author = {Muhammad Arif Rajput and Muhammad Riaz Rajput},
title = {Impact of Defective Investigation and Prosecution on Trial},
journal = {Social Sciences},
volume = {9},
number = {6},
pages = {265-268},
doi = {10.11648/j.ss.20200906.17},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200906.17},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ss.20200906.17},
abstract = {There is rising impression in the Pakistan that the accused get scot free from the Courts. This impression is not in vacuum. There are factors contributing to it. This impression finds support too from the low conviction rate in our country. In Pakistan, the conviction rate is 8.66%, while the conviction rate in India is 37.4%, in England (Crown Court) 90%, and in Japan, it is 99.9%. These figures tend to show that in Pakistan, the Justice prevails, when 91% of the accused persons, after facing the agony of trial, are acquitted by the courts. It not only encourages a criminal to dare repeat the crime, but also results in loss of faith of the victim, his family and society at large, over the Criminal Justice System of Pakistan. The low conviction rate is directly proportional to the wrongs committed during investigation, and indirectly with defective prosecution in Pakistan. However, blaming the courts for acquittal of the accused is not justifiable. The courts are deciding the cases on basis of whatever evidence and material is produced before them, which is collected by the investigating agencies. The courts are not meant for recording convictions only, but for the dispensation of even-handed justice. If the investigation is defective, the prosecution is lethargic, if there is scanty evidence, if witnesses turn hostile, whether the court is left with any other option except to give accused the benefit of doubt. The law requires proof beyond any reasonable doubt. This probative value of high degree is not possible unless the evidence is collected by the agency without leaving anything unturned. Given this backdrop, in this article, we have tried to discuss the impact of defective investigation and defective prosecution on trial. The article is also aimed at finding out as to what can be done for improving the current situation. The conclusion would show that the courts cannot be blamed for low conviction rate when the police, prosecutors and executive authorities fail to discharge their duty.},
year = {2020}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Impact of Defective Investigation and Prosecution on Trial AU - Muhammad Arif Rajput AU - Muhammad Riaz Rajput Y1 - 2020/12/22 PY - 2020 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200906.17 DO - 10.11648/j.ss.20200906.17 T2 - Social Sciences JF - Social Sciences JO - Social Sciences SP - 265 EP - 268 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2326-988X UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200906.17 AB - There is rising impression in the Pakistan that the accused get scot free from the Courts. This impression is not in vacuum. There are factors contributing to it. This impression finds support too from the low conviction rate in our country. In Pakistan, the conviction rate is 8.66%, while the conviction rate in India is 37.4%, in England (Crown Court) 90%, and in Japan, it is 99.9%. These figures tend to show that in Pakistan, the Justice prevails, when 91% of the accused persons, after facing the agony of trial, are acquitted by the courts. It not only encourages a criminal to dare repeat the crime, but also results in loss of faith of the victim, his family and society at large, over the Criminal Justice System of Pakistan. The low conviction rate is directly proportional to the wrongs committed during investigation, and indirectly with defective prosecution in Pakistan. However, blaming the courts for acquittal of the accused is not justifiable. The courts are deciding the cases on basis of whatever evidence and material is produced before them, which is collected by the investigating agencies. The courts are not meant for recording convictions only, but for the dispensation of even-handed justice. If the investigation is defective, the prosecution is lethargic, if there is scanty evidence, if witnesses turn hostile, whether the court is left with any other option except to give accused the benefit of doubt. The law requires proof beyond any reasonable doubt. This probative value of high degree is not possible unless the evidence is collected by the agency without leaving anything unturned. Given this backdrop, in this article, we have tried to discuss the impact of defective investigation and defective prosecution on trial. The article is also aimed at finding out as to what can be done for improving the current situation. The conclusion would show that the courts cannot be blamed for low conviction rate when the police, prosecutors and executive authorities fail to discharge their duty. VL - 9 IS - 6 ER -
Email: