When suspects die before the truth is established, the public may celebrate, but the justice system loses.
By allowing police encounters to substitute for trials, Pakistan risks turning public outrage into a licence to kill—and justice into a privilege exercised by those with power.
The deaths of suspects in two disturbing cases, one involving the killing of a 15-year-old orphan in Multan and the other concerning the alleged fraud that preceded the death of a university student in Islamabad, have once again raised uncomfortable questions about the credibility of criminal justice in Pakistan.
In both cases, police said the suspects were killed after their accomplices opened fire on law enforcement personnel in apparent attempts to rescue them. According to the official accounts, the suspects were struck by bullets fired by their own associates.
The allegations against the men were serious. The suffering of the victims and their families deserves sympathy, and those responsible for these crimes must be held accountable. Yet there is a fundamental question that cannot be dismissed amid public anger: does the death of a suspect establish justice, or does it simply end the possibility of discovering the full truth?
Pakistan must confront this question before the public celebration of police encounters becomes a substitute for the rule of law.
When an encounter becomes a verdict
The circumstances described by police may be accurate, but official statements alone cannot replace independent scrutiny. Whenever a suspect dies in police custody or during an operation, the circumstances of that death must be investigated impartially, the evidence examined and the findings made public to the extent permitted by law.
A police encounter is not a judicial verdict. An allegation is not a conviction, and a suspect’s death is not proof that every allegation against him was true.
The danger is particularly acute when a case has attracted widespread media attention. CCTV footage, viral posts and emotionally charged reporting can create a public narrative before investigators have established the complete facts. When the public has already pronounced someone guilty, a trial may begin to appear unnecessary. A subsequent encounter can then be celebrated as swift justice rather than questioned as a matter requiring accountability.
But the purpose of a justice system is not merely to satisfy public anger. It is to establish facts, determine individual responsibility and punish the guilty through lawful procedures.
The dangerous appeal of instant justice
There is little mystery about why police encounters receive applause in parts of society. People are frustrated by delayed trials, weak investigations, influential offenders and the apparent ability of the wealthy to evade accountability. When victims receive neither timely justice nor meaningful support, a dramatic police operation can appear to deliver what the courts have failed to provide.
This frustration is understandable. The conclusion, however, is dangerous.
If society begins to believe that killing an accused person is preferable to prosecuting him, it effectively abandons the principle that justice must be administered according to law. The state acquires the power to accuse, investigate, determine guilt and execute punishment without the safeguards that separate lawful authority from arbitrary force.
The question is no longer simply whether a particular suspect committed a crime. It becomes whether the authorities can be trusted to decide, without independent examination, who deserves to live and who deserves to die.
No society should be comfortable with that power resting beyond meaningful scrutiny.
The innocent have rights, too
The strongest argument against extrajudicial killing is not that criminals should escape punishment. It is that the punishment of the guilty must never become an excuse for killing the innocent.
In Sargodha, reports have also emerged of a mother alleging that the CCD killed the wrong man and linking the incident to an alleged dispute involving a shopkeeper and a bribe. Such claims must be independently investigated rather than accepted as established fact. But their very seriousness demonstrates why police accounts require credible verification, particularly when a life has been lost.
If the allegations are unfounded, an impartial investigation can establish that. If they are substantiated, accountability is essential. Neither outcome should be determined by public opinion, official assurances or social media campaigns.
An innocent person killed in an encounter cannot be restored to life through a later correction. Nor can a family obtain justice simply because an investigation eventually acknowledges a mistake.
The possibility of wrongful identification is precisely why due process exists. Evidence must be tested, witnesses examined and competing accounts investigated before guilt is established by a competent court.
A licence for the powerful?
The danger extends beyond individual cases. Extrajudicial violence can create opportunities for abuse by those who possess money, influence or access to powerful institutions.
Imagine a personal dispute, a business rivalry or a property conflict in which one party has the resources to influence a complaint or pressure officials. If public accusations are treated as sufficient grounds for punishment, an allegation can become a weapon. A person who is merely unpopular, vulnerable or falsely implicated may find himself facing a system in which the accusation itself carries a potentially fatal consequence.
This does not mean that every police encounter is fabricated or that every officer acts unlawfully. It means that a system without effective safeguards creates opportunities for abuse, and those opportunities must be taken seriously.
The poor and socially marginalised are especially vulnerable when they lack the resources to challenge influential opponents, obtain competent legal representation or make their voices heard. A society that weakens due process in the name of public safety may ultimately protect the powerful while exposing everyone else to arbitrary punishment.
The law must be strongest where power is greatest, not where resistance is weakest.
Religion, ethics and the responsibility of the state
Pakistan’s moral and religious traditions place great importance on justice, fairness and the protection of human life. These principles cannot be invoked only when demanding punishment for an alleged offender; they must also govern the treatment of suspects.
Islamic teachings emphasise justice even when emotions, personal interests or hostility might encourage partiality. The Qur’an commands believers to stand firmly for justice, even when it is against themselves or their relatives (4:135). The principle is clear: justice cannot depend on whether the accused is loved, hated, rich or poor.
The state, moreover, carries a responsibility that private individuals do not possess in the same form. Police officers are entrusted with public authority to protect citizens, investigate crimes and enforce the law. That authority is legitimate because it is constrained by law and accountability.
When those constraints are treated as obstacles rather than safeguards, the distinction between lawful enforcement and arbitrary power begins to disappear.
Social media cannot be the court
The media has an essential role in exposing crimes, questioning official conduct and giving victims a voice. CCTV footage can provide crucial evidence, and public attention can help prevent cases from being buried under political or institutional pressure.
But footage must be authenticated, interpreted in context and assessed alongside other evidence. A viral clip may reveal an important part of an incident without establishing every relevant fact, including identity, motive or the complete sequence of events.
Journalists must distinguish allegations from verified findings, while audiences must resist the temptation to turn online outrage into a final judgment. Responsible reporting should scrutinise both the alleged crime and the circumstances of a suspect’s death.
The media should not become a courtroom in which a person is convicted by headlines and then treated as deserving death. Its responsibility is to inform the public, not to make lawful proceedings appear unnecessary.
Reform the system, not the safeguards
The answer is not to weaken the police or leave victims without protection. It is to build a system in which police investigations are effective, courts deliver timely verdicts and unlawful conduct by officials carries real consequences.
Every death in a police encounter should trigger an independent investigation, supported by forensic evidence, examination of available CCTV footage, medical findings and the accounts of witnesses. Where appropriate, the inquiry should be conducted by an independent agency under judicial oversight, rather than relying solely on the account of the force involved.
Evidence concerning the death must be preserved, and the findings should be made public subject to lawful restrictions. Where evidence establishes unlawful killing or misconduct, the responsible individuals must face prosecution through due process.
At the same time, governments must invest in professional investigations, witness protection, forensic capacity, legal aid and a more efficient judiciary. Long delays and weak prosecutions undermine public confidence and create the very conditions in which shortcuts to justice become attractive.
Police officers who risk their lives to protect citizens deserve institutional support and public respect. But genuine respect for law enforcement also requires clear standards, transparent procedures and accountability for misconduct. An institution becomes stronger, not weaker, when it is capable of investigating its own failures through credible independent mechanisms.
Justice must survive public anger
The death of an orphaned child is a tragedy. The alleged exploitation of a young woman is equally disturbing. The victims and their families deserve truth, accountability and justice. They should not have to watch cases disappear into an inefficient legal system or depend on the death of an accused person to feel that the state has responded.
But justice cannot be measured by how quickly a suspect dies. It must be measured by whether the truth is established, the guilty are convicted on credible evidence, the innocent are protected and public officials are held accountable under the same law they enforce.
If the state can replace a trial with an encounter whenever public sentiment demands punishment, no citizen’s rights are secure. Today, the target may be a man accused of a horrific crime. Tomorrow, it may be someone wrongly identified, falsely implicated or caught in a dispute with a more powerful opponent.
Pakistan does not need a system that merely appears tough on crime. It needs one that is capable of proving guilt, protecting the innocent and punishing offenders without fear or favour.
A suspect’s death may close a case in the public imagination. Only a credible investigation and lawful accountability can deliver justice.
