The Supreme Court has decided that a weak and compromised criminal justice system undermines the rule of law and thus encourages corruption, authoritarianism and the rule of the powerful and privileged.
“An effective and responsive criminal justice system, free of political interference and corruption, is a fundamental right to any citizen, while cheap and rapid justice is a commitment to the state during the Constitution. The criminal system will only serve its purpose when the actual stakeholders, people in this country, will have trust and trust a system that is free, available, impartial, responsible, independent and free of corrupt corruption, or any other influence.
“It is therefore a constitutional duty of any body in the state, the executive, the judiciary and the legislature to take urgent steps to ensure that the criminal system serves the people of this country, and they reversal their confidence and confidence in its righteousness, impartiality and independence,” says a 20-page judgment of justice to have minallah, The last 25 years when he induces life.
A three-member bench of the point of point led by Justice Minallah heard the criminal appeal in a murder case. The verdict notes that the appellant has been imprisoned for more than 25 years.
“The appellant had escaped from legal custody, and it obviously constitutes a separate offense, and it would therefore not be appropriate for us to make any observation so that it cannot distribute the parties’ case in any question that may be pending for a competent court/forum.”
The appellant was young in 1991 when the incidence had taken place. He accompanied his father and the subject was attributed to him and not the appellant.
It cannot be ruled out that the appellant may have acted under the influence of his elders, especially his father. He had no criminal record before the occurrence, and therefore he was a first time offender.
The court further noted that the recovery of four arm weapons is not free of doubt and the evidence made in this regard is not certain to be dependent on.
In addition to these recognized mitigating factors, the appellant has earned the full term prescribed to the alternative punishment of prison for life without the benefits of remissions.
“We are therefore of the opinion that due to these mitigating and mitigating circumstances, the death sentence of five counts was not justified. We therefore partly allow the appeal only to the extent of changing the death penalty of five counts to imprisonment for life of five censuses. The judgment.
The court complained about the criminal justice system in general and the unwarranted delays in the ultimate disposal of cases in which the appellant or petitioner has contested the death sentence. In the case in court, the appellant was sentenced to the death of the trial on September 3, 2008. The appeal was preferred within time.
“The Supreme Court decided on September 18, 2014, and the referral was answered in the affirmative, and thus the death sentence was confirmed. There is a six -year delay in deciding the appeal of a prisoner who has been handed down the death sentence which cannot be justified.”
The time needed to take up the appeal and its ultimate disposal should not have been more than 12 months, the Apex Court said.
“The appellant had then sought leave by filing a petition to this court, and the necessary and reasonable time required for its final disposal should not have been more than twelve months.”
The petition, which was filed in 2014, was for the first time determined for consultation after seven years, ie. on March 22, 2021, and finally on January 29, 2025. It took more than 17 years before the appeal process was implemented from the date the death sentence was handed down.
“The condemned prisoner was in a death cell, and he was not responsible in any way for this exaggerated delay, nor were the procedures in his control.”
The delay had certainly exceeded the necessary and reasonable time required for the appeal procedures to be completed.
This excessive delay brings the criminal system contradict and undermine people’s confidence in the courts and the criminal system. The abysmal relationships in most of the crowded prisons across the country and the inhuman and degrading conditions often reported, often add not only to the unimaginable pain and difficulty of a condemned prisoner, but becomes a form of unauthorized punishment not intended for law.
The court also noted that the judiciary is undoubtedly responsible when the appeal process exceeds the necessary and reasonable time required for its end, but the other branches of the state, the executive and legislature, are also equally responsible for ensuring that the conditions in prisons are human and that the treatment of prisoners is not cruel, inhuman and detrimental.
“It is a difficult task for the high courts and this court to ensure that the appeal process and remedies delivered under the law have been completed within the time needed and reasonable for this purpose.”
The executive branch is equally responsible for ensuring that treatment of the prison inmates is not cruel, degrading and inhuman.
“The legislature is also expected to review the legislation for the purpose of making the criminal system to respond to citizens’ needs and responsible for violations of their rights.”
The unauthorized punishment that an inmate in a prison is forced to endure due to a compromised, weak and failing legal system cannot be legalized or condoned. We have noticed with concern that most of the victims of the excessive delays at the end of the appeal process are the ones who are financially so weak that they cannot even afford to engage a lawyer of their choice.
“It seems that the criminal system, from the study stage to the fixation of appeals, is vulnerable to being exploited by the privileged and powerful, while the victims are those who belong to political, economically and socially marginalized and under -privileged classes.”
Each branch of the state, which has a role in the operation of the criminal system, is obliged to take urgent steps to remedy incorrectly. A system that fails to protect and enforce the rights alienate the actual stakeholders; The people of this country. “
