๐“๐ก๐ž ๐†๐จ๐ฏ๐ž๐ซ๐ง๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ ๐’๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ ๐‘๐ž๐ฏ๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐‚๐ซ๐ข๐ฆ๐ข๐ง๐š๐ฅ ๐‰๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐œ๐ž ๐’๐ฒ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ž๐ฆ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ž ๐’๐ฉ๐ž๐ž๐๐ฒ ๐‰๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐œ๐ž: ๐’๐‚

Share

๐“๐ก๐ž ๐†๐จ๐ฏ๐ž๐ซ๐ง๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ ๐’๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ ๐‘๐ž๐ฏ๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐‚๐ซ๐ข๐ฆ๐ข๐ง๐š๐ฅ ๐‰๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐œ๐ž ๐’๐ฒ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ž๐ฆ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ž ๐’๐ฉ๐ž๐ž๐๐ฒ ๐‰๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐œ๐ž; ๐…๐š๐ฅ๐ฌ๐ž ๐š๐ง๐ ๐…๐ซ๐ข๐ฏ๐จ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐‚๐š๐ฌ๐ž๐ฌ ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐›๐ž ๐‚๐ฎ๐ซ๐›๐ž๐ ๐š๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ฏ๐ž๐ซ๐ฒ ๐ˆ๐ง๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐š๐ฅ ๐’๐ญ๐š๐ ๐ž; ๐๐จ๐ญ๐ก ๐–๐ซ๐จ๐ง๐  ๐€๐œ๐ช๐ฎ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐š๐ฅ ๐š๐ง๐ ๐‚๐จ๐ง๐ฏ๐ข๐œ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐š๐ซ๐ž ๐๐ซ๐ž๐š๐œ๐ก ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐‹๐š๐ฐ: ๐’๐‚

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail of the Supreme Court has delivered a contemplative and circumspective judgment in a criminal case where the accused had to remain behind bars for almost seven years until they were acquitted by the High Court. The Supreme Court noted in its judgment that there were not one but multiple dents and legal flaws in the prosecution case; the FIR was against unknown persons whose physical features or description were not mentioned; there identification parade was not conducted in the prescribed manner as the law mandates and the police did not protect their identity till the conclusion of the identification parade. On these grounds the SC declared the instant case as a false and frivolous case. Despite multiple flaws in the case in hand, the accused still remained behind bars for a considerable period of time. The Court held that no one can bring these seven years for them.

The Court further held that the instant appeal had been filed by the complainant and not by the abductee, the actual aggrieved person in the case in hand. The Court ruled that in criminal case a complainant plays only a role of a whistle blower who only informs the police about the commission of an offence. He cannot be appellant in the case where he is not the aggrieved person such as the case in hand. It is only the concerned aggrieved person who can file an appeal or an application against a decision in his case.

However, the Court pointed out that the real issue lies in the criminal justice system, which is comprised of three components; judiciary, prosecution and investigation agencies,ย  and lawyers. Sometimes, there is a fit case for conviction but the accused gets acquitted due the poor and ill managed trial and investigation. In other instances, people lodge false and frivolous cases against others to vindicate their anger. Our criminal justice system is not sufficiently equipped to filter such cases at the initial stage and nib the evil of false cases in the bud.

The Court suggested to the government in order to improve the criminal justice system and provide speedy justice as mandated under Article 37 of the Constitution, the vacant seats in the judiciary across the board must be filled, the prosecution must be properly trained and vacancies therein must be filled too. Additionally, the procedural laws must be reformed wherever required.

Click to Downloadย 

crl.p._235_l_2015

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top