For the last couple of days, our Judicial system has been the center of the storm.
Getting the ire of the media and the big corporate houses with respect to the judgment on the 2G scam, wherein the Supreme Court has been told that they have over reached the powers that are granted to them.
Then there is the Maria Susairaj case where again the judicial system was condemned, for releasing that girl for being an accomplice to the murder.
Then, there is the ever impending matter about Ajmal Kasab being the guest of the country.
The latest in the list being the reduction of a sentence of a low class laborer who sodomized a 10 month old girl. I came across the controversy on Bikrams' Blog.
I read the article in the Indian Express and finally, through my own research found the judgment that was pronounced by the Mumbai High Court.
This blog post specifically answers certain averments that have been put on the lawyer (s) who fought the case for the accused, and some of the general gyaan that the general junta should know about how the criminal justice works in our country.
**********************************************************************************
The Judgment, the text of which you can read online, simply states, that they have upheld the conviction of the Accused. The only thing being that, they have reduced the sentence from 10 years to 7 years, RI. RI meaning rigorous imprisonment.
And, just so that you all know, a judgment, unless there is no settled law or previous judgment do not give in to the bald arguments of a lawyer.
If you see the judgment, there is a previous judgment that is relied upon by the court to lower the sentence. Further, the reason was because of the 'perversity and deprivation' of the mind, and not because he was 'lonely' as alleged by the newspaper.
There is a difference between a submission that is recorded in the judgment and what the judgment really states. I am appalled that newspapers misquote like anything.
Further, it is imperative to note that the judgment records the fact that, the trial court was aware that the accused had a family back in Uttar Pradesh and that by no means it meant that it should have been the reason for a lenient sentence. But, it was important that a proper perspective be given while passing any judgments/ orders.
And he agreed with the position of law as explained in the case that was cited.
There is no where, where he has said that, what the accused did was right. Just because he set off the sentence with the amount of punishment that the accused had already under gone does not make this judgment wrong.
Of course, if the family is not happy, they can always go in appeal. But just so that you know, that poor baby was 10 months when this happened to her. She would now reasonably be almost 7 years. Through the entire proceedings, she must have been traumatised, considering she wouldn't have really remembered what happened to her then. So just remember you are not fighting for a 10 month old baby.
Here is the thing about our Criminal Judicial system:
1. It is largely based on the principles of Natural Justice, wherein, a Criminal is not considered is always considered to be a non criminal till proven otherwise.
2. The reason why the laws are so strict about the criminal justice system are, so that, an innocent is not put behind bars *YES, there are n number of cases wherein, an innocent is behind the bars*
3. And, there is the reformative aspect of the criminal justice system that we have adopted in India, wherein, if it is the first offence, the punishment should be such that it does not end up hardening the criminal, but instead makes him realise that he has done wrong and that he has to reform. *I hope you all remember that Tihar is one of the major models for this system*
And lastly, whenever we are wronged in any way, we cry ourselves hoarse preaching about the fundamental rights.
The same fundamental rights guarantee that, each and every accused has the right to be represented through a lawyer. And in case he cannot afford a lawyer or doesn't know of any, then it is the duty of the State to provide a lawyer for that person to ensure a fair trial.
To answer you, Bikram, if you read the judgment from the top, you will see that the lawyer for the appellant was appointed.
And, when we get ourselves enrolled as Lawyers, we are governed by the 'Advocates Act' wherein it is our duty to do any and every case that comes to us. We are NOT allowed to say NO to it unless there is a conflict of interest. *By conflict of interest it means that, if you have appeared for the other side before, you can't appear against them.*
Just like it is the duty of the doctor to save lives, irrespective of the fact that the person on his table is a serial killer, similarly, a lawyer irrespective of the moral turpitude that may go inside him, he has to do his duty. And mind you, we cannot sabotage the case of our Clients. That goes against our ethics.
Believe it or not, all lawyers in their lives defend criminals and fight against them too. You cannot take a case based on your emotional assessment, it has to be assessed based on the facts of the case. Whether, morally you approve of it or not.
We lawyers are called by various names, including being called as crooks, but just like everyone else, who sit on their desks and type codes, attend meetings.. we do our duty bound by more rules and regulations than what you can imagine.
We ADVOCATE, we put forth what a person has to say based on the laws of the land.
And as far as a judge is concerned.. they are highly educated and people with more experience in the field of law than what you cant even imagine. They too cannot go beyond the certain jurisdictional restrictions and above all the restrictions placed on them by the laws itself.
The Courts of our Country our bound to serve the society, but there are the laws of the land that have to be followed, because no one in our country is above law, not even the PM. And, these courts are also the custodians and protectors of the Constitution, that helps running the Country. It is the bible on which the laws are made, and a place to look when you require interpretation on ANY law.
Saying what I have said, that does not mean that I endorse what the accused has done. I think that the quantum of punishment for such offenders should be very severe, but that does not mean that a trial be done with biased heads and punishment be awarded without weighing the pros and cons and putting the entire thing in perspective.
It is even more appalling, that, we Indians, have no faith in any system. At least have faith in the Judicial System of our Country, wherein the Courts, ONLY think about the benefit of the society at large.
And you know, why this judicial system is clogged, because, of certain strata of the society who keep appealing every order that comes against them.
Justice never only means punishing the accused. There is a lot more involved in it.
In the end, I would like to iterate what I have said before, that, if the parents are not happy with the order of the Mumbai High Court, then they can go for a appeal to a larger bench and then to the Supreme Court. And, you all should remember that, that 10 month old baby is a 7 year old girl, and thanks to all the hue and cry, even if she is over the incident considering that she is was just an infant then, she will be forced to live through a hell that she never knew.
Getting the ire of the media and the big corporate houses with respect to the judgment on the 2G scam, wherein the Supreme Court has been told that they have over reached the powers that are granted to them.
Then there is the Maria Susairaj case where again the judicial system was condemned, for releasing that girl for being an accomplice to the murder.
Then, there is the ever impending matter about Ajmal Kasab being the guest of the country.
The latest in the list being the reduction of a sentence of a low class laborer who sodomized a 10 month old girl. I came across the controversy on Bikrams' Blog.
I read the article in the Indian Express and finally, through my own research found the judgment that was pronounced by the Mumbai High Court.
This blog post specifically answers certain averments that have been put on the lawyer (s) who fought the case for the accused, and some of the general gyaan that the general junta should know about how the criminal justice works in our country.
**********************************************************************************
The Judgment, the text of which you can read online, simply states, that they have upheld the conviction of the Accused. The only thing being that, they have reduced the sentence from 10 years to 7 years, RI. RI meaning rigorous imprisonment.
And, just so that you all know, a judgment, unless there is no settled law or previous judgment do not give in to the bald arguments of a lawyer.
If you see the judgment, there is a previous judgment that is relied upon by the court to lower the sentence. Further, the reason was because of the 'perversity and deprivation' of the mind, and not because he was 'lonely' as alleged by the newspaper.
There is a difference between a submission that is recorded in the judgment and what the judgment really states. I am appalled that newspapers misquote like anything.
Further, it is imperative to note that the judgment records the fact that, the trial court was aware that the accused had a family back in Uttar Pradesh and that by no means it meant that it should have been the reason for a lenient sentence. But, it was important that a proper perspective be given while passing any judgments/ orders.
And he agreed with the position of law as explained in the case that was cited.
There is no where, where he has said that, what the accused did was right. Just because he set off the sentence with the amount of punishment that the accused had already under gone does not make this judgment wrong.
Of course, if the family is not happy, they can always go in appeal. But just so that you know, that poor baby was 10 months when this happened to her. She would now reasonably be almost 7 years. Through the entire proceedings, she must have been traumatised, considering she wouldn't have really remembered what happened to her then. So just remember you are not fighting for a 10 month old baby.
Here is the thing about our Criminal Judicial system:
1. It is largely based on the principles of Natural Justice, wherein, a Criminal is not considered is always considered to be a non criminal till proven otherwise.
2. The reason why the laws are so strict about the criminal justice system are, so that, an innocent is not put behind bars *YES, there are n number of cases wherein, an innocent is behind the bars*
3. And, there is the reformative aspect of the criminal justice system that we have adopted in India, wherein, if it is the first offence, the punishment should be such that it does not end up hardening the criminal, but instead makes him realise that he has done wrong and that he has to reform. *I hope you all remember that Tihar is one of the major models for this system*
And lastly, whenever we are wronged in any way, we cry ourselves hoarse preaching about the fundamental rights.
The same fundamental rights guarantee that, each and every accused has the right to be represented through a lawyer. And in case he cannot afford a lawyer or doesn't know of any, then it is the duty of the State to provide a lawyer for that person to ensure a fair trial.
To answer you, Bikram, if you read the judgment from the top, you will see that the lawyer for the appellant was appointed.
And, when we get ourselves enrolled as Lawyers, we are governed by the 'Advocates Act' wherein it is our duty to do any and every case that comes to us. We are NOT allowed to say NO to it unless there is a conflict of interest. *By conflict of interest it means that, if you have appeared for the other side before, you can't appear against them.*
Just like it is the duty of the doctor to save lives, irrespective of the fact that the person on his table is a serial killer, similarly, a lawyer irrespective of the moral turpitude that may go inside him, he has to do his duty. And mind you, we cannot sabotage the case of our Clients. That goes against our ethics.
Believe it or not, all lawyers in their lives defend criminals and fight against them too. You cannot take a case based on your emotional assessment, it has to be assessed based on the facts of the case. Whether, morally you approve of it or not.
We lawyers are called by various names, including being called as crooks, but just like everyone else, who sit on their desks and type codes, attend meetings.. we do our duty bound by more rules and regulations than what you can imagine.
We ADVOCATE, we put forth what a person has to say based on the laws of the land.
And as far as a judge is concerned.. they are highly educated and people with more experience in the field of law than what you cant even imagine. They too cannot go beyond the certain jurisdictional restrictions and above all the restrictions placed on them by the laws itself.
The Courts of our Country our bound to serve the society, but there are the laws of the land that have to be followed, because no one in our country is above law, not even the PM. And, these courts are also the custodians and protectors of the Constitution, that helps running the Country. It is the bible on which the laws are made, and a place to look when you require interpretation on ANY law.
Saying what I have said, that does not mean that I endorse what the accused has done. I think that the quantum of punishment for such offenders should be very severe, but that does not mean that a trial be done with biased heads and punishment be awarded without weighing the pros and cons and putting the entire thing in perspective.
It is even more appalling, that, we Indians, have no faith in any system. At least have faith in the Judicial System of our Country, wherein the Courts, ONLY think about the benefit of the society at large.
And you know, why this judicial system is clogged, because, of certain strata of the society who keep appealing every order that comes against them.
Justice never only means punishing the accused. There is a lot more involved in it.
In the end, I would like to iterate what I have said before, that, if the parents are not happy with the order of the Mumbai High Court, then they can go for a appeal to a larger bench and then to the Supreme Court. And, you all should remember that, that 10 month old baby is a 7 year old girl, and thanks to all the hue and cry, even if she is over the incident considering that she is was just an infant then, she will be forced to live through a hell that she never knew.
