Perjury hinders justice
Traditional think-tanks like Manu and Chanakya have maintained that punishment is the basis of the State. Where there is no punishment, thieves and dacoits rule supreme there. If the king awards heavier punishment than justified, people may rise in revolt against him, and if the king is more lenient than wanted, he is despised by the people.
In absence of punishment, there will prevail chaos, confusion and disorder in the society and the weak will be exploited.
Imam Abu Yusuf, Chief Justice of the Abbaside dynasty during the reign of Caliph Harun or Rashid, writes in his book Kitabul Kharaj that no man shall be arrested on mere complaint. It can be done only when there is sufficient ground to do so and with assurance that his back is safe unless the court of law orders.
Hazrat Ali (RA) said, no angry man shall be appointed judge because an angry man cannot deliver justice. Imam Abu Hanifa was of the opinion that some crimes are committed very secretly and apparently no evidence is left. In this situation, circumstantial evidence can be considered to prove the charges. He further said that no hypocrite and liar can be accepted as witness. No one should be forced or bribed to give false injury. This is grave crime. Perjury diminishes impartiality of judgment.
In the opinion of Kent, punishment should aim justice, while Benthem said that the aims of the punishment are to maintain peace, law and order.
Ameer Hamzah
Dhaka
