Join our Whatsapp channel

       ？ Detailed verdict on petition of a murder convict issued

       ？ Says onus on respective govts to ensure police serve people, not just the privileged class

       ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court, in a detailed judgement, equated the widespread tendency of refusing or delaying the registration of FIRs by police, where it affects the rights of the most vulnerable and marginalised sections of society, with abuse of powers to the advantage of the privileged class.

       The 30-page verdict issued on Friday by a three-member SC bench, headed by Justice Athar Minallah and also comprising Justice Irfan Sa’adat and Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmed Khan, came on a jail petition filed by Seeta Ram, who was sentenced to death by a trial court for murder in Umerkot on Aug 18, 2018, and whose conviction was upheld by the Sindh High Court on March 15, 2023.

       The apex court converted Seeta Ram’s jail petition into an appeal and through a short order announced his acquittal, citing procedural irregularities and lack of conclusive evidence.

       In the detailed judgement, Justice Minallah regretted the refusal, either inadvertent or deliberate, on part of an officer in charge of a police station to fulfill the statutory duty mandated under Section 154 of the criminal procedure code, noting that this was a “serious dereliction” of a statutory duty and negation of the authority vested under CrPC.

       “This tendency erodes the confidence of the people in the criminal justice system,” Justice Minallah remarked. People would then be justified in perceiving police to be serving the interests of the powerful and privileged rather than public, the actual stakeholders, he explained.

       ‘Police state’

       These are characteristics of a “police state” and not a state meant to be governed under the Constitution, the judge said.

       According to the ruling, the case at hand was only the tip of an iceberg and reflected adversely on the status of the criminal justice system.

       Justice Minallah said the officer in charge of a police station had no authority to refuse or delay its registration as mandated under the CrPC. “The delay without a convincing reason gravely affects the rights of the parties, the victim and the accused and gives an opportunity to manage and manipulate the evidence to falsely implicate innocent persons,” he noted.

       The judgement recalled the response of the Sindh police chief and acting prosecutor general when asked to explain why the mandatory provisions of CrPC and other enabling laws were flagrantly violated. The reasons such as deep-rooted cultural practices, preference of the complainants, attempts of reconciliation and dispute resolution prior to FIR registration, religious beliefs or medical priorities were alien to the mandate of CrPC and inconceivable in a society governed under the Constitution that guarantees rights, liberty and freedoms to every citizen, the verdict mentioned.

       However, it said, the reasons explained were neither tenable nor expected from a uniformed police force, entrusted with the responsibility of upholding the law, maintaining public order, prevention and control of crime, protecting the citizens from harm and, above all, safeguarding their rights and freedoms.

       The reasons might be justified in a society governed under tribal and archaic traditions but not when the governance is under the Constitution, the SC ruling emphasised.

       Acknowledgement of such reasons would be perceived as capture of police force and criminal justice system by those who wield power and influence, rather the system being subservient to the rule of law, he noted.

       Repressive control

       According to the verdict, the foundation of the edifice of the criminal justice system was built on the prevention and investigation of a crime whether reported to or whether the information is otherwise received by an officer in charge of a police station.

       When the police authorities disregard their duties and functions, they were perceived as being used by the powerful and privileged to maintain a repressive social and political control over the people, according to the verdict.

       The SC observed in its ruling that the IGs of all the provinces were expected to take effective steps in order to ensure there was no refusal or delay in the registration of cases if the information was about to the commission of a cognisable offence.

       The court also expected that the prosecutor generals of the respective governments to advise police authorities and frame SOPs in accordance with CrPC’s mandate.

       Onus on govt

       The onus is on the respective governments to demonstrably establish, through the conduct of police officers, that the statutory duties and obligations were being strictly followed and respected, the judgement observed.

       It is an onerous duty of each government to ensure that the police department under its control exists solely to serve the people, rather than to maintain a repressive social and political control over them.

       Published in Dawn, July 13th, 2025