LAHORE: The conviction rate in kidnapping for ransom cases is low because of faulty criminal justice system and the kidnappers kill the kidnapped persons as murder is not bigger crime than the kidnapping under the law.

Kidnapping and murder both carry capital punishment. The kidnappers kill the kidnapped as murder is a compoundable offence. By doing so, they not only eliminate the evidence but also avail the legal “facility” of having a compromise with the victim’s family which they cannot if they are merely charged with kidnapping.

These two elements have been cited by the Punjab prosecution department while replying to a query by the Supreme Court as to why the conviction rate in kidnapping for ransom and murder cases is low in the country.

Punjab police more or less agree with the list of reasons given by the prosecution department but also give eye-opening additional factors that they think are contributing to the low rate of conviction in this heinous crime.

According to documents obtained by Dawn, the prosecution department believes that delay in registration of kidnap for ransom cases due to the reluctance of police and in recording the statement of the kidnapped persons are two major reasons for non-conviction of the kidnappers.

Other reasons include resiling of witnesses, ineffective identification parade by police and magistrates, faulty investigation, lack of training of the investigation officers to deal with such kind of crime, improper procedure of collection of mobile telephone data which the law-enforcement agencies do not authenticate with signatures, and lack of witness protection.

The department suggests training of investigating officers and their certification, closure of all fake SIMS, prescription of procedure for collection of telephone call data, recovery of illegal weapons and a ban on their manufacturing, and trial through video link.

Captors kill the kidnapped as murder is compoundable offence

It also suggests framing of witness rules, regulation of identification of the accused through identification parades and finger prints, maintenance of database of DNA and finger prints through legislation, signed statements of witnesses to prevent their resiling, examination of the accused through audio or video recording and abolition of death sentence for kidnapping.

Police have their own story to tell. They deny that they failed to check the kidnap for ransom cases. The law-enforcement agencies have 88 per cent cases detected. They could not recover the kidnapped persons in 8pc cases in the last five years due to threat to the life of the kidnapped persons, delayed information and fast shifting of the kidnapped persons through motorways and expressways, hideouts of the kidnappers in Waziristan, Fata and other turbulent areas in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa where the law-enforcement agencies have limited operational control, lack of cooperation from the victim family about the deal of the recovery and their refusal to give true statement of the incident in the courts.

The kidnapped persons refrain from disclosing the identity of the kidnappers and the money paid for their release because of lack of witness protection system and trust in the conviction of the kidnappers. The fear of repeated kidnappings in view of the uncertain prospects of the conviction of the kidnappers, prevent them from pursuing the cases.

Police say that they do not have the facility of real time call recording of the kidnappers and the intelligence agencies show reluctance in giving evidence in courts to prove the case against the accused.

The recommendations include blocking of all fake SIMS, provision of mobile telephone data and live listening and location facility for them, closure of all illegal arms manufacturing small factories in Fata, tribal areas, seizure of all illegal weapons, monitoring of Whatsapp and Viber, proper checking of vehicles at all the entry and exit points.

Police recommend trial of the kidnapping for ransom cases in military courts because they are committed for fund raising by militants, admissibility of evidence before police officers, protection of witnesses, judges and police officers and their families.

Published in Dawn, April 27th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play