What is a
perfect crime? Law experts explain; it is that crime, which cannot be proved in
the court of law and the accused convicted. That means, present procedure of
law can work and prove the guilt only if the crime is not perfect. The
corollary of this explanation is, if somebody commits a perfect crime the
criminal can escape punishment and as our law says until and unless crime is
proven the convict is innocent! That means a criminal committing a perfect
crime can move about in the society as an innocent gentleman even after
committing the crime. This is a very dangerous situation indeed.
To know
more about this we shall see definition of crime in Indian Jurisprudence. Any
act of violence of the law is called crime. Laws are set in it to guide people
as to how to live and do their work in the Indian society under this government.
These laws are very often different from the laws set in religions. In most
religions a crime is called sin. Not all crimes are sins and not all sins are
crimes and that makes a big difference in them.
To prove
that violence of act or law has taken place law enforcing agency such as police
shall have to present to the court acceptable proof, witness, or (indirect) evidence. Proof is direct
evidence. That
means if a crime committed so carefully that none of them is available, then
court shall not accept the accusation that the crime has been committed and the
person will be set free. Deeming that, the person is innocent. That means if
some body committees a crime but takes every care so that none of these, proof,
witness, or evidence, is available then that crime is called a perfect crime.
We often
see that advocates advise their clients to forcibly threaten any eye witness
and by that that proof they eliminate. Misinterpreting available proofs and
evidences by indulging in arguments to show that the available proof or
evidence is not valid to prove the crime. Many very simple procedures they use
to do that. By these acts a pleader converts a provable crime into a
non-provable one or in a way a perfect crime. A good advocate is one who knows
well how to convert imperfect crime into a perfect one. Pleaders skill is
judged from his ability to do this.
For
example, in one case an eye witness was giving his information and in that the
advocate asked him some such questions that he could not recall that
information; from that the advocate suggested to the court that the eye witness
is not reliable. Normally, an eye witness is not a very careful observer and so
he always makes some intangible mistakes those mistakes are the points that
advocate uses to prove that his evidence is not dependable. Inconsistency in
reply is often the advantage to the advocate of the defender. By these methods
shrewd pleader converts a watertight crime into a weak, non-provable one. That
means, even if the crime is not originally perfect a clever advocate converts
it into a perfect crime by his skills. While inspecting an eye witness our
judiciary expects that the person is very intelligent and clever and all that,
so he will always make perfect observation as if he knew that, that observation
is going to be useful for a crime case. I think this expectation is very
ridiculous. People are never very observant about things happening around them.
They never know that a particular observation is of any use in a possible crime
of which he has no idea. If people were that discreet to know of a possible
crime in advance I am sure, observers will make really perfect observations but
that is never the situation and so whatever evidence we collect through such
eye witnesses are always challengeable. Therefore, all eye witness can be
easily proved to be false; if the pleader is clever and knows how to baffle the
witness. Most cases are lost due to this anomaly in law proceedings. Expecting
too much accuracy in the eye witness’s statement is not correct, and the
judiciary should use its jurisprudence or even common sense to properly
interpreter the given evidence and come to conclusion. This if they do, many
cases shall solve properly giving justice to the parties involved; as a matter
of facts a good jurisprudence is expected to do that but at or courts this does
not happen. May be, our judges are not having that prudence to exercise proper
jurisprudence.
A crime
is always due to some motive. To prove the motive should be the purpose of the
proceedings and not go in superfluous details in which we see most cases get
fixed. A crime case either criminal or civil can be very simple if we want to
stick to the bear minimum arguments but that we do not see happen in most
cases. We see advocates showing their oratory skills, one really not needed to
bring justice to the victim. A lot of time is wasted it that. Sometimes we feel
that our judiciary is not serious about the actual case and wastes most time in
useless arguments showing oratory skills of advocates; Courtroom becomes an
entertainment hall. Our Courts have become business houses. If time not wasted
in all these gimmicks many cases can resolve pretty quickly.
Direct
destruction of evidence by putting fire to a place such as recent fire at our
Mantralay or proving the eye witness as not a normal person or maniac these are
other methods pleaders ask their clients to accept so that the case becomes a
perfect crime. In extreme state of affairs a witness is killed to make the
crime perfect. This is similar to fire to destroy evidence.
You may contact me on my Email ID given
below,
No comments:
Post a Comment