Umar Riaz says it will be business as usual unless, learning from Zainab's case, we enact legislation for new scientific investigation skills, forensic laboratories and training
The child’s body was found in the woods near a busy road. The body was mutilated; the skull fractured and limbs missing. The parents and community were devastated. The entire country was outraged; there were clarion calls for justice. The manhunt for the killer was the biggest in the country’s history. All the resources of the State were marshaled to find the criminal. Hundreds of police officers and investigators huddled together to find clues and thousands of suspects were interrogated. The police lacked professional investigatory skills and were criticized for not being able to prevent the kidnapping and killing. There was also paranoia, false alarms, accusations and counter accusations. The hunt went on for many months.
And the killer was finally caught.
The details seem strikingly familiar and ‘Zainab’s Case’ will be the first thing that will come to mind. But the case is from another time and another country. The time is 75 years ago, in 1932. The country is the United States of America. The child was 20-month-old Charles Lindbergh Jr, who was abducted from his home, killed and dumped by the kidnapper. His killing affected the country the same way Zainab’s has outraged us. The killer was prosecuted and ultimately executed. But it ushered in an era of reforms in the criminal justice sector. It was found to the surprise of all that the kidnapping itself did not entail serious penalty then. It was also discovered that there was a lack of capacity in criminal investigation by local police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The case led to new legislation, new scientific investigation skills, forensic laboratories and training.
In 2001 Javed Iqbal confessed to killing 100 children from ages six to sixteen and dissolving their bodies in acid in Lahore
We hear the words "crazy", "psycho" and "serial offender" but nothing beyond that on the profile, be it the mysterious knife attacker from Karachi or the present Kasur suspect. CCTVs are there but hardly standardized and without effective matching mechanisms or databases
Will Zainab’s case result in system change for us too?
The answer has to be NO if recent history is any guide. In 2001, there was Javed Iqbal. A self-confessed killer of 100 children from age six to sixteen, who dissolved his victims’ bodies in acid. A psychologist who interviewed him in custody recently wrote that according to Javed, the number of victims was far more and one hundred were those whose particulars he could remember. An even more tragic fact is that Javed Iqbal’s killing spree spanned not years but just six months and no one seemed to notice. His manhunt was the biggest and ended only when he himself informed the press about the killings. Still, he could not be found until he surrendered himself in a newspaper office in Lahore. Citizen outrage and distrust of the police was of such a level that thousands of people surrounded the office and the military had to be called in to control the situation.
Despite the hype and mass anger, the takeaways from Javed Iqbal’s case are few and disappointing. The police’s non-professionalism is the first. His accomplice committed suicide while in custody by jumping off a roof. The trial was no better. His conviction judgment contained graphic references to his being cut into 100 pieces. Finally, he along with another associate was found dead in Kot Lakhpat Jail. The case closed. As for the protection of children, and legislation and reform, it’s business as usual for all the agencies responsible for protection, enforcement and prosecution.
But business as usual does get disturbed now and then. Sumbul’s case is a recent example. A five-year-old girl kidnapped from Mughalpura in Lahore, was assaulted and left for dead in front of Ganga Ram Hospital. There was a CCTV video of the culprit leaving the body. There was this outrage, notice by the high-ups, the manhunt, interrogation of many suspects and finally—business as usual. The Sumbul case might have been solved but would that have prevented the Zainab case? The answer in all probability would be NO. And between Javed Iqbal’s confessions and today, how much distance have we covered in terms of installing a reliable, professional and effective enforcement system to handle such crimes? The answer has to be NONE. Zainab’s case will hopefully be traced and the killer will be brought to justice but will it restore people’s confidence in our criminal justice system? Again the disappointing answer has to be in the negative.
What will it take to break this apathy?
The Lindbergh case should serve as a guide. The case changed the whole outlook of how the US dealt with crimes related to children, specifically violent crimes. All sorts of scientific labs were set up, from accurate crime sketches to handwriting analysis, to wood experts, as the killer used a wood ladder to scale the Lindbergh home wall. The FBI introduced a behavioural science unit to make criminal profiles and even before the criminal was arrested, had accurately identified his ethnicity and other traits.
We hear the words “crazy”, “psycho” and “serial offender” but nothing beyond that on the profile, be it the mysterious knife attacker from Karachi or the present suspect. CCTVs are there but hardly standardized and without effective matching mechanisms or databases.
The investigation clearly falls short of expectations and the prosecution part is no better. The reason is not want of guidelines but serious lack of will. The Supreme Court has already issued detailed guidelines in Salman Akram Raja and others vs Govt of Punjab (PL J 2013 SC 107) about the incorporation of DNA and other scientific evidence, ruling out reconciliation and protection of victims. Tragically, our solutions are always transitory and superficial. The easy way out seems to be converting such cases into trials under the Anti-Terrorism Act, a response which serves neither the spirit of terrorism law nor creates an institutional response to child abuse, rape and women-related crimes. The institutional response will not develop unless these cases move up the ladder of priority and do not evaporate once the media hype is over.
