Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Monday, November 25, 2024

Is Judiciary Not Capable Of Punishing Criminals?

Posted in: Criminal Law
Sat, Jul 11, 20, 11:33, 4 Years ago
star star star star star
5 out of 5 with 1 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 4970
No matter how hard we all who are in the legal profession may try to deny but it is an unpalatable fact that the image of judiciary has taken a severe beating in the eyes of the people in last few decades as the criminals mostly escape either totally unscathed or face very lenient punishment which is just not done.

No matter how hard we all who are in the legal profession may try to deny but it is an unpalatable fact that the image of judiciary has taken a severe beating in the eyes of the people in last few decades as the criminals mostly escape either totally unscathed or face very lenient punishment which is just not done. Very rarely do we see them getting the strict punishment which they deserve also! It is high time and judiciary must now come out of its comfort zone and take strong steps to salvage its sagging reputation in the eyes of the people! Laws must be amended now to favour the victim and not the criminal as we see most unfortunately right now much to our chagrin!

If judiciary had ensured that Vikas Dubey was sentenced promptly to even 14 years in jail without any relief, he probably would not have been able to spread his criminal roots so deep in the society that permeated not just politicians but even the police! Why are murderers accused allowed to come out so easily on bail? Why are history sheeters allowed to not just come out on bail but also contest elections?

Why judiciary allows even dacoits and hard core criminals to contest elections and become MPs and MLAs? Why when for getting even a small job, one has to get police verification done and even a single false case disqualifies one to get the small job but for politicians who rule this country is it that even after facing 1000 criminal cases still they are not rendered ineligible? Why are they allowed to contest even from jails? It is here that judiciary has most miserably failed as it has done nothing to contain it due to which the percentage of politicians with criminal antecedents are increasing very rapidly with every passing election!

Why those who commit brutal crimes are allowed to get away by following the rarest of rare case doctrine propounded in Bachan Singh's case by Supreme Court in 1980 which ensures that rarely ever is a hardened criminal ever hanged? Why it takes several decades before the case is finally decided? Why even after Supreme Court sentences a criminal is he allowed to fritter away time by first filing mercy petition, then filing review petition and then filing curative petition and worst of all no time limit is fixed for deciding mercy petition, review petition and curative petition?

Why there is no mandatory death penalty for gang rape and rape cum murder? Why are discretion bombs in form of may not defused in rape laws so that criminals don't gain from it? Why judiciary has ensured that just a few rapists-cum-murderers are hanged in last many decades which has only served to further encourage criminals?

Why are witnesses not accorded full protection and why is it not ensured that they are saved from being killed? Why a witness has to depend on himself to ensure his/her protection and reach court safely at his/her own risk in most of the cases due to which many times they are either badly wounded or are even killed? Why are witness protection schemes not fully implemented in all the States and why judiciary does not take any action to ensure that the same is done urgently?

Why judiciary has miserably failed to ensure that its own landmark recommendations on police reforms as outlined in Prakash Singh case in 2006 have not been implemented even after 14 years in 2020? Why in cases of custodial torture, judiciary does not ensure that those who are guilty of torturing and killing innocent persons are not just sent behind bars but also are sent to the gallows? Why judiciary does not realize that lenient approach to custodial torture only results in police getting emboldened to indulge in more such tortures and many times we see that innocent persons face the most worst brunt?

Why has judiciary not ensured that for cases of corruption involving crores of rupees there is mandatory death penalty? Why instead do we see many times that those involved in corrupt cases are allowed to easily secure bail? Why judiciary has failed to act tough against corrupt people in last so many decades after independence?

Why is it that when a truly dedicated and determined Chief Minister like Yogi Adityanath of UP known all over for his impeccable conduct and firm determination to weed out criminals from each and every hook and corner of the state and decides to name and shame criminals who indulge in destroying public and private property, burning buses, vehicles etc do we see that judiciary steps in and speaks vociferously for protecting the right to privacy of criminals just like Allahabad High Court did? Why is it that protesters were allowed by judiciary to block national highway at Shaheen Bagh for more than 100 days and none other than the Supreme Court appointed a high powered Committee comprising of senior lawyers like Sanjay Hegde which only further emboldens others to similarly indulge in such anti-national acts? Why protesters are allowed to block rail tracks etc as we saw earlier during the Gurjar reservation stir and why judiciary is not prepared to do anything to stop it forthwith?

Why judiciary feels that there is nothing wrong in hanging just one poor Dhananjoy Chatterjee who was the son of a priest and that too on just circumstantial evidence alone in decades and not allowing the son of a former top IPS cop to be hanged even though there was direct evidence and the murder was committed most ruthlessly as we saw in Priyadarshini Mattoo murder case and the accused who was a senior in a Law College is set free after about just 14 years or so in prison? Why judiciary holds its hand very tight to ensure that many rapists cum murderers are able to easily escape death penalty even after committing the most ghastly and most dastardly crime? Why judiciary never does any serious introspection on this that by not hanging rich and powerful rapists cum murderers, they only serve to send a loud and clear message that the rich and powerful can get away by doing anything in their life?

Why judiciary ensures that those who commit most heinous offences like rape, murder etc are given bail after some time like few months or an year at the most? Why judiciary never cares to see that those very offender who comes out on bail once again resorts to crime and destroy the life of yet another person most easily? Why judiciary allows criminals to contest from jails and get bail very easily even after committing most horrifying crime just by paying money for surety etc which the rich and the powerful don't find any difficulty in doing so?

Why judiciary ensures that criminals gain most in hugely populated state like UP which has maximum pending cases all over India by having just one high court bench and that too just about 200 km away from Allahabad high court at Lucknow since 1948 and no bench in remote areas like West UP where more than 9 crore people live and litigants have to travel more than 700 km on an average to travel all the way to Allahabad to get justice due to which victims suffer the most? Why judiciary ensures that peaceful states like Maharashtra which tops in justice index list has 4 high court benches and UP which is in the bottom among all big states has just one? Why judiciary ensures that Centre led by the then Congress government partially implements the landmark recommendations to create more high court benches at Maharashtra in Aurangabad, at Jalpaiguri in West Bengal and Madurai in Tamil Nadu but not a single for UP for which it had recommended 3 high court benches at Agra, Dehradun and Nainital? Why judiciary behaves like a helpless spectator knowing fully well that many former UP CM have supported the demand for more benches in UP and Yogi Adityanath had demanded for Gorakhpur in 1999 while in his capacity as an MP from there?

Why judiciary knowing fully well that West UP accounts for more than 57% of the total criminal pending cases in UP as was acknowledged even by Justice Jaswant Singh Commission in his report has never ensured that a high court bench is created here? Why can't judiciary take the lead in this direction instead of passing the buck always on Centre? Why for just 6 crore people of Karnataka there is a high court and 3 benches but for more than 9 crore people of West UP there is not even a bench?

Why UP which has more than 23 crore population has just one high court bench due to which cases are not being decided in time and it is criminals who are having a gala time and still judiciary decides to play safe even though it acknowledges that West UP deserves a high court bench? Why judiciary fails to appreciate that the more than 9 crore people of West UP especially the litigants have to suffer immeasurably due to no bench being created here? Why can't UP have more high court benches?

Why can't judiciary ensure that those who are arrested for heinous offences are not able to come out on bail after just few months? Why can't judiciary be more proactive to ensure just like UP CM Yogi Adityanath to ensure that no one is allowed to block roads, rail tracks under any circumstances? Why instead should judiciary question UP CM instead who has always lead from the front in taking on criminals which only encourages anti-social elements and lumpen elements to take law for granted and indulge in destruction of public and private property, blocking of road, rail etc?

Can our nation afford it? Can our nation afford more Shaheen Bagh? Let me reiterate: Judiciary must now come out of its comfort zone and do some honest introspection on this!

Needless to say, Supreme Court certainly has heavily blundered on Shaheen Bagh by not ordering the prompt removal of protesters from highway and instead forming Committee to talk with them who broke law and caused maximum inconvenience to commuters! Judiciary is certainly capable of punishing criminals only if it stops kowtowing before them on one pretext or the other! Criminal cases should not linger for several decades as we see most unfortunately for which it is judiciary which has to act decisively now!

No doubt, bail should not be given ever for heinous offences like rape, murder etc! Only then can criminals be checked most effectively! Clearly, the ball lies now in the court of the judiciary!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top