Chaps! Address the core question. Core question was why on earth do our police department has to adopt inhuman ways to control the crime. And why in civilized nations (I thought we were civilized until recently) we seldom hear such incidents.We are discussing this incident because it’s highlighted by media (mostly video sharing web services). But there are several other incidents that have taken place before, for instance in Faisalabad two Christians were killed by mob in the presence of police, in Karachi mob burned a person accused of snatching mobile phone and police did nothing.
Problem is that many of you people are not aware of the working of our judicial system, and nor do many police officers. Believe me, the police department is run by those people who do not know the basics of judicial system. Let me explain it to you, there are three parties in every criminal case, first party is one against whom crime has been committed, in our legal term we call it complainant or in Urdu Mustageez, second party is that which is being accused of committing a crime, we call it defendant, third party is state, we call it prosecution. Every crime is against the state. Technically, who ever commit a crime; it’s state’s constitutional responsibility to prosecute that person. But due to failure of state prosecution machinery (which include police and state’s lawyer), the complainant has to hire a private attorney. So, in every criminal case there are three versions, one of the complainants, one of the defendant and one of the prosecutions. Now, judge is a neutral person, he has no mystical powers to judge a person, that whether a person is criminal or not. He gives his judgment in light of evidence brought before the court by all three parties. Now, there is a possibility that a judge may be biased, or corrupt, but there is an equal possibility that any one of the parties is misguiding the court. But this possibility can be reduced by vigilance of the other two parties.
Now, problem arises when our Yahoo’s in police, which is very important part of prosecution, either intentionally due to corruption, political pressure or unintentionally due to lack of training and usage of scientific methods of investigation are not able to prove their case before the court. Let me give an example, it is settled principle of law that joint statements of accused are inadmissible in law, but no matter how hard the judges reprimand the investigators they do the same mistake over and over and over again. And when the court have to set the accused free, due to negligence on part of prosecution, the usual answer of police is that we catch the criminals and courts set them free. No police officer will ever admit his fault that it was their failure that has led to freeing of a criminal.
There are several other reasons for prosecutorial failure, but all those reasons point toward the inefficiency of police. But instead of removing these faults in prosecution, our Yahoo’s have adopted an easy way, why bother to investigate, why not kill accused at the spot. The reason, why Zulfiqar Cheema is responsible, because he is chief proponent of this doctrine of killing accused.
@ Mr. Sociologist, dear there is a Chinese saying that “never judge abilities of a person by his size and age” yes I am young, don’t have much experience either, but buddy, I do know my field well. A lot better than you do.

__________________
" None are more hopelessly enslaved, than those, who falsely believe that they are free"
Goethe