Defects of Mahammedan Criminal Law

Defects of Mahammedan Criminal Law Incomprehensibility of Principle Though certain broad principle of Mohammadan criminal law where laid down, still may cases the criminal law was not certain and uniformity. In actual practice it was realized that the law laid down in Hidaya and Fatwa-i-Alangiri was mostly conflicting, confusing and incompatible. In each case the interpretation of law depended on the Quzi who presided over the court. Unscientific classification: The inherent defect of Mohammedan criminal law was the in its conception and classification of crimes were these kinds a. Crimes against god b. against the state c. against private individuals  No distinction between private and public There was not clear distinction between private and public laws. The basic notion in the Mohammedan jurisprudence was to secure satisfactory for the injured rather than to afforded  protection to the society at large. This weakness of mohammandan law was sufficient to encourage many persons to commit murders. Blood money and pardon (forgive guilty party) The law of  Diya  Diya or blood-money was also highly unscientific in the interests of the society. According to the Mhammadan law, the son or the nearest of murdered person was authorized to  pardon the murder (s ) of their parents This made the life of a human being very cheap to be assessed in money value. The Mohammandan law made no distinction between crime and tort.  No distinction between murder and homicide The Mohammadan criminal law allowed distinction between the murder perpetrated with an instrument formed for shedding blood, and death caused by deliberate act. The punishment for these offences were also very severe by the Modammandan law confused sin and crime.

Irrational law Evidence The law of evidence, under Muslim criminal law was also very technical, defective and unsatisfactory. Ex. No Mohammadan could be convicted capitally on the evidence of an infidel. (somebody with no religious belief) Moreover the evidence must be direct and in all case of  Hadd or   Hadd or  Kisa  Kisa and murder the evidence of  a woman was inadmissible. It led to corruption, bribery and injustice. It seemed as if the law was framed with a special care for the criminal to escape. It thus helped the accused and one who told the truth was punished. Reforms by English administration First interference with Mohannedan criminal came in 1772 when Warren Hastings changed the existing law regarded dacoity to suppress the robbers and dacoits. To regulate the machinery of justice in Bengal, Warren Hastings prepared plans and introduced reforms in 1772, 1774, 1780 and 1781 respectively. Lord Cornwallis: From 1772-1790 no special effect was made to change the Modammedan criminal law. The problems of law and order as well as to improve the defective state the Mohannadan law was seriously considered by Cornwallis when he came to India in 1790 by a Regulation of the Government of Bengal. Gross defects in Mohammedan criminal law and defects in the constitution of courts. In introduced the importance of intention in committing a crime, instead of the weapon with which the crime was committed. 1. Consequently he rejected Abu Hanifa’s doctrine and accepted Doctrine of Yusuf and Mohammad. 2. Socking the next of  kin’s discretion to accept bold-money bold-money he decided to punish the offender. 3. Punishment of amputation and mutilation of organs were substituted by fine and hardlabour and imprisonment. The Muslim law thus stood modified in 1792. The modifications of Cornwallis were st enacted from 1 May, 1793.