suffer in silence. In such an eventuality, the victims and their sympathisers have derived satisfaction from the deaths of the wrongdoers although it did not come through the due process of law.

Are we to assume, then, that the perpetrators of crime who cannot be brought under the law have to dealt with beyond the law? Needless to mention that in such an assumption lies the suicidal admission that the criminal justice system of a civilised society has failed to act and that the state has forsaken one of its primary functions. Since we cannot reconcile to such a scenario -- which amounts to an admission that we are a "failed state" -- we have a duty to the public to find out why, as alleged, some organs of the state have to resort to apparent vigilante action. We have to know if law enforcement personnel are deviating from the statutory directives in their anti-crime operations.

Treating the symptom
The proper dispensation of justice through the due process of law (i.e. after proper investigation and prosecution) may result in capital punishment. In such an eventuality, the public gets to know the facts and circumstances of the incident and the alleged criminal is afforded the benefit of a legal defence. However, deaths in "crossfire" -- the ultimate punishment -- about whose credibility many are not convinced, seems to be the summary response of those responsible for law enforcement. The legality of actions leading to such deaths apart, any right-thinking citizen might like to know, if in our often over-zealous anti-crime operations, we are merely treating the symptoms without venturing to go into the causes of crime.

We do not need sociologists and criminologists to tell us that present-day crime is a complex social phenomena caused by a multiplicity of factors and determining culpability is an extremely difficult task. Everyday life experience tells us that quite often the fun-seeking delinquent of yesteryears turn into uncontrollable don of the day due to the patronage of powerful quarters and the unexplained inaction of enforcement personnel. Therefore, when deaths occur in "crossfire" some might be satisfied, but a civilised society which wishes to live by the canons of law cannot but be concerned.

Equally important, death in crossfire forestalls the benefits of thorough interrogation wherefrom the public might come to know compelling facts as to the role played by the political patrons of the criminals and the inertia of law enforcement units. Law enforcement authorities might receive information about the transport trade and the wholesale markets, amongst other sectors, and the mechanics of effective control over such illegal extraction of unaccounted money. The fact that successive authorities have failed to put any effective brake on the unlawful activities in the aforementioned areas raises serious questions about their sworn commitment to control crime and corruption. In such a scenario, where the objective conditions leading to criminality are not seriously studied and effective actions thereof are not initiated, how can the unsuspecting public be assured that the fearsome "crossfire" deaths are the best alternative? Spectacular but dangerous palliatives cannot understandably substitute for painful sustained action.

Deficiency in the system
Efforts, though not very convincing, have been made by some to justify the deaths in "crossfire" by pointing to the frustrating absence of punishment of hardened criminals by our legal justice system. At one end of the system are the police whose job is to prevent and detect the crime and to bring the offenders before the judiciary for adjudication of guilt. At the other end are the courts, to ascertain and determine the guilty, if any, as per law and based on facts and evidence, and to punish the guilty. The knowledgeable person knows that our criminal justice system is still heavily loaded in favour of the accused. In such a system, while there is plenty of concern for the accused for justified reasons, there is unfortunately, very little or no legal or administrative support for the victims of crime.

Witness protection and victim support
Experience shows that a large number of heinous crimes go unpunished because there is not sufficient protection or security of the witnesses for the prosecution and the victims. The delay in holding trial is

another issue which has a direct bearing on the effective and speedy punishment of the criminals but whose causes are not the subject matter of this article.

The aspects which merit our attention in this regard are that at present we do not have institutional arrangements in place for witness protection and victim support. In the western world and also other parts of Asia, the government and private organisations are rendering fruitful service to the victims of crime. Ideally, this has to be a joint venture of the statutory authority and welfare-oriented bodies

.There is no dearth of NGOs in our county. Therefore, it should be a priority with the state to enlist voluntary and non-governmental participation for witness protection and victim support. Initiation of such schemes will provide at least some encouragement to the victims of crime by pulling them out of the present hazardous environment.

Absence of speedy trial
The so-called virtues of summary action will not receive public support when we are able to ensure speedy trials which are the essence of criminal justice. The guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind to gain the confidence of the public in the judiciary. The reality, however, is that often the quality of justice has depended upon the defendant's wealth or lack of resources, and the economic, political, and social status of the accused have perme-

ated the judicial process. Experience indicates that lack of coordination between different agencies like prosecution policy/lawyers and judiciary have failed to ensure speedy trials. A serious look in this regard will reveal that nobody accepts the responsibility for the state of affairs or for the remedies that are required to deal with the issue of fair and speedy trial. It is very difficult to find a straight answer. We may, however, think of ad-hoc remedies with hopes of finding a permanent solution.

Our criminal jurisprudence
The three cardinal principles of our criminal jurisprudence are that (a) the onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, (b) the accused must be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty, and (c) the onus of prosecution never shifts. In a criminal trial it is not at all obligatory on the accused to provide evidence in support of his defence. Our criminal justice policy has perhaps paved the way for the large scale acquittals of criminal cases in the country. One view is that the system which emerged during the latter half of 19th century cannot meet the needs of the country in the changed socio-cultural and political conditions. A re-examination of the total approach and linking up with the criminal jurisprudence with the objective of harmonious development is necessary.

Modernising law enforcement
A circumspect apprehension is that as long as the policing function, comprising detection of crimes and prosecution of criminals, remains under the control of the executive, it may not be possible to bring about a reduction in unjust political interference in police investigations, an area which is highly vulnerable, because of the sub-ordination of the police to the executive. The question is, if we are prepared to separate the functions of investigation and prosecution from the functions of prevention of crime and maintenance of order, in other words, to remove the police from the control of the executive and make the organ charged with investigation and prosecution as autonomous as the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

The police are under a statutory duty to function in accordance with the mandate of the legislature and it would be a gross violation of the statute for the government to alter the code of conduct in a way contrary to the provisions of the law. The moment an offence is committed or intended to be committed, the law takes its own course and it is not open either to the officer or the minister to change the course of law.

Muhammad Nurual Huda is former Inspector General of Police and Secretary to the Government.