Scribd
Upload
27 views2 pages

Chapter - Ix Conclusions and Suggestions 9.1 Now It Is Time To View The Research Questions

The chapter discusses two research questions: whether the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is fully enforced in India, and whether the basics of criminal jurisprudence are understood clearly by the judiciary and police in India. It concludes that while India's constitution incorporates most of the UDHR, it is not fully enforced in practice. It also finds that the police rely on crude investigation methods and the judiciary does not always base convictions only on conclusive evidence.

Uploaded by

priyanka
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
27 views2 pages

Chapter - Ix Conclusions and Suggestions 9.1 Now It Is Time To View The Research Questions

The chapter discusses two research questions: whether the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is fully enforced in India, and whether the basics of criminal jurisprudence are understood clearly by the judiciary and police in India. It concludes that while India's constitution incorporates most of the UDHR, it is not fully enforced in practice. It also finds that the police rely on crude investigation methods and the judiciary does not always base convictions only on conclusive evidence.

Uploaded by

priyanka
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CHAPTER –IX

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

9.1 Now it is time to view the research questions

1. Whether Universal Declaration of Human Rights is fully enforced in India?

The Indian Constitution Law came into existence on 26th November 1950.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights came into existence on 10th December

1948. As observed in chapter III of this research, all the articles of UDHR except

article 30 are incorporated in our Constitution in chapter III and chapter IV of our

constitution. The problem that existed earlier was Part III of the Indian

Constitution is enforceable while Part-IV of the Indian Constitution was not

enforceable. The Supreme Court while deliberating on life and liberty through

Article 21 of Indian Constitution has declared that all the demands of Part IV are

mandatory and hence part IV has become enforceable.

If India strictly adheres to the Indian Constitution Law, then India will be

strictly applying the UDHR. The Politicians, Judges, Bureaucrats, Human Right

Commissions talk high of UDHR in meetings and seminars but fail to put them in

practice. The Supreme Court of India has time and again insisted on the adherence

of Constitution of India and UDHR in its judgments and it pains to note even the

Supreme Court is violating the Human Rights in its judgments. One can conclude

that UDHR is only on paper but not in practice. If we strictly follow the demands

of our Constitution Law, we will then follow the demands of the UDHR. But we

find that the Constitutional Law is not followed and so the Universal Declaration

Human Rights is not fully enforced in India. If it is enforced in India, the sorry

plight of the under trials languishing in prison would have seen the light of the

day.

238
2. Whether basics of Criminal Jurisprudence understood in the clairvoyant

manner by the Judiciary and the Police?

The apex court of India has delivered wonderful judgments on the basics

of Criminal Jurisprudence but now it seems that judiciary and the police do not

understand the basics of Criminal Jurisprudence in a clear manner. The police

wield the law of the land. The police get convinced by their investigation but they

do not know how to convince the court of law. If section 27 of Evidence Act is

removed, the police would be groping in the dark as to how to complete the

investigation. The police apply only crude unscientific methods in investigating

crimes which exposes that the police are ignorant of the basics of the Criminal

Jurisprudence.

In judiciary we hear convicting judge and acquittal judge. These two names

informs that certain judges are very particular, in basing conviction and the other

judges are bent in according benefit of doubt to the accused. The benefit of doubt

is the golden rule of the Criminal Jurisprudence and so conviction can be based

only when there are no doubts. Investigation should link the weapons or objects to

the crime and should link the crime to the accused. When there is a missing link

the judiciary cannot base a conviction.

It is time and again held by the higher courts that courts of law are not to

probe into truth of anything but it has to give a judgment that is a final decision

based on the evidence placed before the court. In some of the judgments we find

the judges taking the role of public prosecutor in arguing the case in the judgment

in favour of the prosecution.

239

You might also like