Cherokee
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 6,722
- Reaction score
- -15
- Country
- Location
Monday, April 15, 2013
The recent acquittal of three Mazar-e-Quaid employees in a gang-rape case is being described as a strange decision by many law experts and human rights organisations.
Additional District and Sessions Judge (East) Nadeem Ahmed Khan gave the benefit of doubt to the three alleged rapists on April 6 while rejecting the DNA report and citing contradictory statements of witnesses and lack of evidence as the reasons behind the verdict. Ignoring the medical reports, the judge ruled that there was no solid proof against the suspects in the light of Islamic injunctions that needed at least four eyewitnesses in such cases.
Professor Dr Abid Azhar, director general of the AQ Khan Institute of Biotechnology and Genetics, said a corroborated proof to establish the involvement of any outlaw in any heinous crime could be obtained by conducting a DNA test.
“I have never heard about the denial of DNA reports on the part of the accused or courts anywhere in the world…such reports are considered to be concrete evidence, but in Pakistan they are not taken seriously.”
Elaborating, Dr Azhar said medical and DNA reports remain solid proof against criminals across the world but in Pakistan the courts took up such matters in a relatively different legal perspective so he could not argue on their verdicts.
A senior advocate and an expert on law, Noor Naz Agha, said in most of the cases, outlaws benefit from the inappropriate reports and statements submitted by police. “The registration of cases under irrelevant clauses also goes in favour of the outlaws at the end of the day. The courts generally make decisions after examining the overall evidence and any contradictions in the statements of the witnesses ultimately benefit the accused.” Replying to a question, Agha said the acquittal of the three accused in the gang-rape case could be challenged in the appellate court by the complainant.
Another senior lawyer and a member of the Sindh Bar Council, Yaseen Azad said the complainant and other witnesses’ contradictory statements might have damaged their case. “In such a situation, the judge usually gives the benefit of doubt to the accused,” he added.
Several human right orgnisations raised strong voice against the incident. After the pronouncement of the verdict, various human rights organisations; particularly War Against Rape, questioned the acquittal of the accused. They argued that the survivor herself had identified the rapists, which itself constituted concrete evidence.
In his verdict, the judge declared: “It is not fair to rely on DNA reports in such cases, as they only deal with medical facts without ascertaining exactly if someone was raped. The medical reports presented in the court also do not prove if the woman was raped by these three suspects.”
Referring to certain Quranic rules in Surah-e-Noor related to such incidents, the judge observed that it was not fair to punish the suspects for “Zina bil Jabr” and disposed of the case.
The mausoleum’s security guard, Khadim Hussain, accountant Manzar Raja Arif and assistant engineer Manzar Arif Ansar were arrested by the police after the DNA report confirmed their involvement in the gang rape case.
The woman had come to Karachi with her family to visit various shrines in the city. On March 17, 2008, she was standing inside the mausoleum while her husband had gone outside with some other family members when she was abducted by the said three men, who later gang raped her in an underground room.
They were booked by the police under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) inserted into the Protection Act-2006.
The rape survivor identified one of the suspects, Khadim Hussain, during an identification parade, singling him out from the numerous people standing in the courtroom.
At many stages of the trial, the rape survivor, a resident of Lodhran, Punjab, and prosecution witnesses as well as the investigation officer started staying away from the court proceedings.
The trial court had to issue bailable arrest warrants against 18 witnesses, including the investigation officer and the alleged victim, to compel them to appear in the trial court for the conclusion of the case.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-4-171401-In-Pakistan-DNA-evidence-does-not-count
I think Pakistan would be one of the very very few countries where Courts Find DNA evidence Inconclusive .
The recent acquittal of three Mazar-e-Quaid employees in a gang-rape case is being described as a strange decision by many law experts and human rights organisations.
Additional District and Sessions Judge (East) Nadeem Ahmed Khan gave the benefit of doubt to the three alleged rapists on April 6 while rejecting the DNA report and citing contradictory statements of witnesses and lack of evidence as the reasons behind the verdict. Ignoring the medical reports, the judge ruled that there was no solid proof against the suspects in the light of Islamic injunctions that needed at least four eyewitnesses in such cases.
Professor Dr Abid Azhar, director general of the AQ Khan Institute of Biotechnology and Genetics, said a corroborated proof to establish the involvement of any outlaw in any heinous crime could be obtained by conducting a DNA test.
“I have never heard about the denial of DNA reports on the part of the accused or courts anywhere in the world…such reports are considered to be concrete evidence, but in Pakistan they are not taken seriously.”
Elaborating, Dr Azhar said medical and DNA reports remain solid proof against criminals across the world but in Pakistan the courts took up such matters in a relatively different legal perspective so he could not argue on their verdicts.
A senior advocate and an expert on law, Noor Naz Agha, said in most of the cases, outlaws benefit from the inappropriate reports and statements submitted by police. “The registration of cases under irrelevant clauses also goes in favour of the outlaws at the end of the day. The courts generally make decisions after examining the overall evidence and any contradictions in the statements of the witnesses ultimately benefit the accused.” Replying to a question, Agha said the acquittal of the three accused in the gang-rape case could be challenged in the appellate court by the complainant.
Another senior lawyer and a member of the Sindh Bar Council, Yaseen Azad said the complainant and other witnesses’ contradictory statements might have damaged their case. “In such a situation, the judge usually gives the benefit of doubt to the accused,” he added.
Several human right orgnisations raised strong voice against the incident. After the pronouncement of the verdict, various human rights organisations; particularly War Against Rape, questioned the acquittal of the accused. They argued that the survivor herself had identified the rapists, which itself constituted concrete evidence.
In his verdict, the judge declared: “It is not fair to rely on DNA reports in such cases, as they only deal with medical facts without ascertaining exactly if someone was raped. The medical reports presented in the court also do not prove if the woman was raped by these three suspects.”
Referring to certain Quranic rules in Surah-e-Noor related to such incidents, the judge observed that it was not fair to punish the suspects for “Zina bil Jabr” and disposed of the case.
The mausoleum’s security guard, Khadim Hussain, accountant Manzar Raja Arif and assistant engineer Manzar Arif Ansar were arrested by the police after the DNA report confirmed their involvement in the gang rape case.
The woman had come to Karachi with her family to visit various shrines in the city. On March 17, 2008, she was standing inside the mausoleum while her husband had gone outside with some other family members when she was abducted by the said three men, who later gang raped her in an underground room.
They were booked by the police under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) inserted into the Protection Act-2006.
The rape survivor identified one of the suspects, Khadim Hussain, during an identification parade, singling him out from the numerous people standing in the courtroom.
At many stages of the trial, the rape survivor, a resident of Lodhran, Punjab, and prosecution witnesses as well as the investigation officer started staying away from the court proceedings.
The trial court had to issue bailable arrest warrants against 18 witnesses, including the investigation officer and the alleged victim, to compel them to appear in the trial court for the conclusion of the case.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-4-171401-In-Pakistan-DNA-evidence-does-not-count
I think Pakistan would be one of the very very few countries where Courts Find DNA evidence Inconclusive .
I dont expect this thread to last
