Justice Sector Response to Honour Killings in Pakistan

305 JUSTICE SECTOR RESPONSE TO HONOUR KILLINGS IN PAKISTAN By Kamran Adil and Warda Kamran Adil I- INTRODUCTION Honour killing is a form of Gender-Based Violence (GBV) that has gained spotlight due to its prevalence in Pakistan. Internationally, the issue has received attention and every now and then some odd event takes place that reignites the debate on the issue of honour killings. While society and media have been responding to honour killings by condemning and flashing up these horrific happenings, the response of the justice sector has been measured and time consuming. The instant write up will try to capture some areas related to honour killings to which the justice sector responded in its peculiar systemic way. II- JUSTICE SECTOR RESPONSE The justice sector of Pakistan comprises legislature and the machinery for providing justice to the victims i.e. criminal justice system. The justice sector s response may be examined thematically by looking at the following areas: 1. CRIMINALIZATION The first challenge was to criminalize the honour killings as a separate category of offences. This was not an easy task. Lot of condemnation by the society coupled with amplification of the reports of honour killings by media resulted in very effective advocacy. Besides, the non-governmental organizations took up the matter very forcefully. The first justice sector response in the form of a concrete judicial indictment came in 2001 when the Supreme Court of Pakistan declared that honour killing (as a custom of karokari) was against Article 8(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan1. Later, in 2004, the legislature through a special law i.e. the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 20042 defined and criminalized honour killing. It defined the honour killing in the following words: offence committed in the name or on the pretext of honour" means an offence committed in the name or on the pretext of karokari, siyahkari or similar other customs or practices;"3 The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2004 also excluded4 the offence of honour killing from the list of standard murder categories. The 2004 Amendment added many other provisions to punctuate the sentencing, waiver and compounding of the honour killings. The legal framework was further strengthened through the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences in the name or on the pretext of Honour) Act, 20165. The 2016 law, attending to the doubts and practices of dealing with honour killing as a species of murder, changed the very nature of the offence by including it in the category of fisaad-fil-arz 6 (mischief on earth). This inclusion of honour killing in the category of fisad-fil-arz had deep rooted implications as it made the offence an offence against the state (instead of an offence against person). This criminalization of the honour killing was the first tangible and concrete response of the justice sector to this important issue. 2. TYPOLOGY There is no academically or legally recognizable typology of the offence of honour killings. However, based on the information available as per reported honour killings, for the sake of discussion and analysis, these may be categorized in the following types7: a. Honour Killings in the confines of a house/residential/building; b. Honour Killings in which the panchayat/local council of elders decide to kill the woman or man or both; and c. Honour Killings in which the woman is killed in court premises/offices. For categories (a) and (b), usually some form of direct and testimonial evidence along with forensic evidence are available; it is category (c) that needs special attention as, more often than not, the crime scene is washed away/polluted/cleaned by the perpetrators who happen to be in full control of the crime scene till the information is received by police for further legal action. This particular type of honour killing is much pervasive and has difficulty insofar as the collection of investigation, prosecution and adjudication are concerned. 3. MEASUREMENT Measurement of honour killings is not straight forward. For example, as per press reports, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) noted that 405 honour killings took place in Pakistan in 20248. On the other hand, the data available on the website (that runs data from 2011 to 2023) of the Punjab Police shows a downward trend of honour killings9. The measurement has to be more accurate and must be validated. Nevertheless, one point is clear that there is substantial impact on the number of honour killings since the legislative changes were brought by the legislature. 4. REGISTRATION OF CRIMINAL CASES AND STATE AS COMPLAINANT The police leadership, in the cases of honour killings, on the persistent media follow up and on the social outrage, has improvised the process of registration of criminal cases. It has started taking control of the initial information by denying the suspects the opportunity to become complainants of the cases; the police have started registering cases as complainants on behalf of the State. This change of process is not based on law, but on the willingness of police officers/leaders to take action against this heinous form of killing. 5. BURDEN OF PROOF During a trial, after the police have collected the circumstantial evidence in cases of third type (i.e. honour killing within the confines of a house) and the prosecution supports it, the next big challenge is to deal with the onus of proof requirement that shapes the mindset of the judges in Pakistan. The accused- centric architecture of the criminal justice system that is based on the presumption of innocence is the most challenging part of the whole prosecution/trial. Under Article 117 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, (QSO) the onus squarely falls on the prosecution in such cases. However, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the leading case of Saeed Ahmed10 invoked Article 122 of the QSO to shift the burden of proof on the accused. The judgement laid the foundation for interpreting the law in victim-centric spirit. It has been followed in many judgements since then11. Recently, Justice Amjad Rafiq of the Lahore High Court took up the case and tried to humanize the trials in honour killing cases in which women were killed within the confines of their houses. 6. SENTENCING The justice sector response did not limit to criminalization of honour killings; it stretched as far as the sentencing was concerned. The Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences in the name or pretext of Honour) Act, 2016 regulated the sentencing by amending section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 186012 (P.P.C.). The amendment stated that no honour killing would be punished under section 302(c) (the lowest degree of murder). This sentencing regulation was given effect through Abbas Case decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan13. In addition, section 311 was added to the P.P.C. through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 200414, which was further substituted by a more refined version of section 311 that brought in more clarity in the law by stating that even in the cases where compounding or waiver had taken place, the court was empowered to impose the punishment for life15. 7. COMPOUNDING AND WAIVER The most important aspect of the honour killings was that the heirs of the victim were getting opportunities to become complainant of the criminal cases; this not only established their control on the criminal case, but also enabled them to enter into compromise or compound the offence with the accused. As stated above, the police leadership started registering criminal cases on behalf of the State foreclosing the chances of the accused/heirs to take control of the case, the matter of compounding and compromise required justice sector response. This response came in the form of amending section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 189816 through 2004 and 2016 criminal law amendments enabling courts to impose life imprisonment (even after compounding or waiver of the offence of Qatal). III- WAY FORWARD Pakistan s justice sector response has been far from ideal. It has, however, shown some signs of improvement. The judgements of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Saeed s Case (2015) and Assad s Case (2020) have been baby-steps in the right direction. With more victim-centric interpretations and judgements from courts, it is hoped that the criminal justice system will be humanized and justice to women will be served who die within the confines of their houses. 1 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2004 (notified in official gazette on 10th January, 2005. 2 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2004 (notified in official gazette on 10th January, 2005. 3 Through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2004, the definition of honour killing was added in definitions of the Qisas and Diyat part of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. 4 A proviso was added to section 302 (c) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2004. 5 Notified on 21st October, 2016 through official gazette. 6 Section 2 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences in the name or on the pretext of Honour) Act, 2016. 7 As a disclaimer, it may be noted that these types are only for academic purposes and no category is proposed to be less important than the other. 8 https://tribune.com.pk/story/2558258/405-honour-killings-recorded-across-pakistan-in-2024-hrcp. 9 https://punjabpolice.punjab.gov.pk/honour-killings (as visited on 31st October, 2025). The number of cases in 2011 were 364, which came down to 150 in 2023. 10 2015 SCMR 710. 11 PLD 2017 SC 681, 2017 SCMR 724 and 2025 SCMR 1591. 12 Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences in the name or pretext of Honour) Act, 2016. 13 PLD 2020 SC 620. 14 Section 8 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2004. 15 Section 6 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences in the name or pretext of Honour) Act, 2016. 16 Section 14 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2004 added a new provision subsection (2)(a) to section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.