LAHORE: Most people sentenced to death by trial courts in murder cases are being acquitted by the Lahore High Court on appeal. Legal sources point to weak police investigations, flawed evidence collection, contradictory witness statements and poor prosecution as the main reasons the state is failing to prove its cases.
According to sources, even after a trial court has handed down a death sentence, the full record and evidence are examined again at the appeal stage. When that review reveals investigative flaws, inconsistent testimony or gaps in the evidence, the High Court in many cases gives the accused the benefit of the doubt and acquits them.
Legal experts say an allegation, an FIR or an arrest is not enough to convict someone in a serious case like murder. The prosecution has to prove every essential element of the offence with evidence that is reliable and legally admissible. A mistake made at an important stage of the investigation can affect the final verdict years later.
Under Pakistan’s criminal justice system, the burden of proof stays with the prosecution throughout. Appellate courts have repeatedly held that if there is a single reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to benefit from it as a matter of right, not as a favour. Recent examples include the High Court overturning a life sentence and acquitting Umar Hayat and finding a prosecution case doubtful.
Sources say that in some cases police fail to preserve key evidence, document material from the crime scene properly, or keep witness statements consistent. These weaknesses often come out during the trial but are not fixed effectively.
Contradictory witness statements are another major reason cases fall apart. In some cases, what a witness told police at first differs from what he later says in court. Sometimes witnesses do not fully support the prosecution’s version.
Prosecutors also struggle when forensic and other physical evidence is not firmly linked to the rest of the case. If the chain of evidence connecting the accused to the crime does not meet the legal standard, it becomes hard for a court to uphold a conviction.
Sources say questions are also being raised about how effectively prosecutors pursue cases. A case can weaken if key witnesses are not produced, contradictions in their statements are not explained, the investigating officer is not asked the necessary questions, or the legal validity of the evidence is not established.
In some cases, trial courts handed down death sentences based on the evidence available. When the higher court examined the testimony closely on appeal, the flaws in the prosecution’s case became clear.
Legal experts say investigating officers and prosecutors need to work together from the start in cases that carry the death penalty. If prosecutors identify legal and evidentiary gaps before the investigation is finished and the challan (charge sheet) is submitted to court, the case can be made much stronger.
Experts say police and prosecutors should not stop once a case is registered or a suspect arrested. They should follow the case closely until the final judgment. A joint strategy between the investigating officer and the prosecutor is needed to review evidence, witnesses and legal points.
The growing number of High Court acquittals of people sentenced to death has raised serious questions about police investigation and prosecution. If cases presented at trial fall apart on appeal because of investigative and evidentiary flaws, who is responsible? And when will an effective oversight system be put in place to improve how serious cases are investigated and prosecuted?
The acquittals also have a human side on both sides. Victims’ families who spent years waiting for justice may see the case end without anyone being held responsible. And people acquitted after years on death row may have lost that time over cases that could not be proved.
Experts say giving the accused the benefit of the doubt is a basic principle of law. But it is the state’s responsibility to investigate and prosecute serious crimes to a standard that puts reliable, consistent and legally sound evidence before the court. As the High Court expands its capacity with a new 11-storey block, how well cases are built before they reach judges remains the unresolved problem.
Leave a Reply