THE recent verdict in a triple murder case in Sindh has once again compelled us to reflect on a fundamental question: does the failure lie in the final judgment of the court, or in the long process through which a case reaches it?

Human rights activist Ume Rubab Chandio’s father, grandfather and uncle were murdered ruthlessly on Jan 17, 2018, for challenging the feudal lords and the brutal system under them. The district court in Dadu, however, acquitted all the eight accused, granting them the benefit of doubt.

An eight-year period is not insignificant. Yet, when such a prolonged wait culminates in an acquittal on the basis of ‘benefit of doubt’, it inevitably raises concern. One is left to ask whether justice had already been weakened long before it arrived in the courtroom.

Our criminal justice system continues to rest on legal frameworks inherited from the colonial era, including the Pakistan Penal Code, the Qanoon-i-Shahadat Order, and the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the issue is not merely the age of these laws, but the manner in which they are implemented.

In many cases, weaknesses begin to emerge at the very outset. Delays in the registration of FIRs, flaws in investigation, contradictions in witness testimonies, and the absence of independent corroboration gradually erode the strength of a case.

By the time such a case reaches the court, the judge is left with limited room to manoeuvre; the standard of proof in criminal law leaves little choice, but to extend the benefit of doubt.

In such circumstances, a verdict may be legally sound, but it fails to satisfy the public sense of justice. The ordinary citizen sees the outcome, while the law is con-cerned with the process. When these two diverge, public confidence always suffers.

It is also vital to ask whether the system operates uniformly for all. Do power structures and social hierarchies exert influence at the investigation stage? When such questions arise, justice ceases to be merely a legal concept, and becomes a matter of public debate. Cases such as the triple murder serve as a reminder that justice is not merely about one verdict, but about the integrity of the entire process that leads to it. When investigations are flawed, evidence is inconsistently gathered, and prosecutions fail to meet the required standard of proof, the outcome becomes almost inevitable — acquittal on the basis of doubt.

This is not simply a legal technicality; it is a systemic failure. Courts can only decide on the evidence placed before them. When that evidence is compromised — whether through inefficiency, negligence or influence — judicial process is effectively undermined long before the case reaches the bench.

If the system continues to produce such outcomes, the main question is no longer whether justice was done in a particular case, but whether the process itself was even capable of delivering justice at all.

Dr Abdul Qadeer Memon
Naushahro Feroze

Published in Dawn, May 5th, 2026