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 some body 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. Some times 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,

ashokkothare@gmail.com

You are, invited to visit my other blogs if interested.

Ashok Kothare for stories

Ideas and tips on any subject for intelligent discussions.