Honour killing

2025 PCrLJ 1573 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 114, 311 & 34

Qatl-i-amd, abettor was present when the offense was committed, ta'zir after waiver or compounding of the right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, common intention

Bail, dismissal of

Honour killing

Compromise effected

Allegation against the petitioner-accused was that he committed murder of his wife and brother by firing due to their illicit relations

Allegedly, compromise had been effected between the parties, thus petitioner claimed bail on such compromise

Honour crime or offence committed in the name or on the pretext of honour as prima facie emerging in the present case

Section 345(7), Cr.P.C., put an embargo on compounding the offence of murder, if committed on the pretext of honour

Apart from that, the present accused-petitioner had specifically been charged for committing the murder of his wife and brother inside the premises of their house

Complainant of the present case was nobody else but real brother of the male deceased and that of present petitioner, therefore, the possibility of substitution was next to impossible

Medico-Legal/post mortem reports of both the deceased were adamant of the fact that they had received multiple firearm injuries on different parts of their bodies

Moreover, there was also a recovery of weapon of offence i.e. a .30 bore pistol, on pointation of the present accused-petitioner along with a positive Forensic Science Laboratory Report, whereby it was opined that the five crime empties were fired from one and the same weapon

Therefore, it prima facie seemed that it was the job of one assailant

On the basis of tentative assessment of the record, accused-petitioner was prima facie connected with the commission of an offence which fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497,Cr.P.C, as such, he was not entitled to the concession of bail, even on merits

Bail petition being meritless was dismissed, in circumstances.

2020 PCrLJ 1436 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

S. 265-KPenal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302 & 311Qatl-i-amdPower of court to acquit accused at any stageQatl-i-amd, tazir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amdHonour killingScope

Accused persons assailed the dismissal of their application under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C., which was moved mainly on the ground that a compromise was effected between the parties

Murder of deceased, as evident from the FIR and final police report, was committed on account of "ghairat"

Newly born baby of the deceased was also murdered and the place of her burial was pointed out by the accused persons

Offence of honour killing was non-compoundable

Section 311, P.P.C. placed an embargo and stipulated that the punishment for the offence of honour killing shall not be less than 10 years

Revision petition was dismissed.

2019 PCrLJ 1239 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13Qatl-i-amd, possessing unlicensed armsBail, grant ofFurther inquiry-ScopeHonour killingScopeCompromise affected between the partiesScope and effectTrial Court refused bail while not endorsing the compromise entered into by the parties

Final police report did not mention that the murder was one of the honour killing, rather pure/simple murder of a wife by her husband as alleged; secondly, the father and mother of deceased lady were not alive and the complainant, who was real brother of the deceased, had effected compromise with the petitioner

Grandfather of the children was taking care of the minors and they (children) were suffering because firstly, they had lost love and affection of their mother and secondly, a grandfather could not take the needed care of the children as compared to a real father (petitioner in the present case)

No useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in jail

Case of the petitioner called for further inquiry as envisaged under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Petitioner was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

2017 PLD 103 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 498/497 & 345(2-A)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302Qatl-i-amdBail before arrest, refusal ofCompounding of offencesHonour killingCompromise in cases of honour killingPermissibility

Mere fact, that the legal heirs of the deceased had pardoned the accused, was not sufficient to entitle him to the grant of bail, as the offence alleged against him was against the State as well as against the society

High Court observed that 'honour killing' was prevailing in the society and every day innocent people were being murdered in cold blood

Section 345(2-A), Cr.P.C. provided that in case of 'honour killing', compromise could be allowed only subject to certain conditions, and approval of the Trial Court was also mandatory in that regard

Applicability of S.302(c), P.P.C. had been excluded in cases of qatl-i-amd committed in the name or on the pretext of honour which fell within the ambit of S.302(a) & (b), P.P.C.

Accused failed to point any mala fide either on part of the complainant or the police to falsely implicate him

Recoveries were yet to be effected from the petitioner

Pirma facie the offence of murder was made out against the accused

Application for bail before arrest was dismissed accordingly.

2017 PLD 8 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss 306 (b) & (c), 307(1) (b) & (c), 309(1), 310(1), 311, 313 & 338Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 345(1) & (2A)Constitution of Pakistan, Art.203-DShariat petitionHonour killingWaiver to or compounding of offenceRepugnancy to Injunctions of Islam

Plea of petitioner that honour killing was Fasad-Fil-Arz" and therefore there should be no compoundability in granting waiver to or compounding the offence of Qisas with an accused who took law in his hands and committed a heinous offence of murder without adopting recourse to the judicial process

Validity

Section 311, P.P.C. already provided for the relief sought by the petitioner

Said section started with the word "notwithstanding anything contained in S.309 or 310" pertaining to waiver of Qisas in Qatl-i-amd and compounding of Qisas in qat1-i-amd and by authorizing the court to award, inter alia, even death sentence to such a culprit despite the waiver of or compounding the right of Qisas by the adult sane 'Wali'

Shariat petition being misconceived was dismissed accordingly.

2016 YLR 1517 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b) & 302(c)Qatl-i-AmdAppreciation of evidenceSentence, reduction inGrave and sudden provocationHonour killingMultiple murdersAccused was charged for committing murder of his wife, her paramour and his own three minor childrenTrial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death on five countsValidity

Accused had seen his wife and her paramour in objectionable position, when other deceased and injured were also present in the house

Both the major deceased had been found contemporaries so far as their ages were concerned

Ambient circumstances compelled accused to get rid of his wife, her alleged paramour and his own children in order to absolve himself from opprobrium life and odium living

High Court modified the conviction of accused from S. 302(b), P.P.C. to S. 302(c), P.P.C. and his sentence of death on five counts was commuted to sentence of imprisonment for twenty five years on five counts

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2016 PLD 268 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Violence against womenHonour killingsForced marriagesJirga, holding ofLegalityKilling of women on the allegation of "Karo Kari"Forcible marriage and giving the hands of women as penalty in "Jirga"Equality of womenContracting marriage by two sui juris was not an offenceState was bound to ensure protection of every single soul and make law for protection of women and childrenWoman would be free in choosing her life partner and protecting her property and honourWomen were considered as true and complete owner of their respective property which they had receivedMen had no right to part a woman from her own belonging or propertyConstitution had ensured 'dignity' and 'privacy' of a home as inviolable

Woman could not be declared as "Kari" and no one could decide the fate of a lady while awarding her death penalty on pretext of "Kari"

Woman could not be married with Quran to escape her right in property

No one could give a lady as compensation for sin if any of others and maltreat her

No custom could be in conflict with law of the land

'Jirga' could not be backed by any law and only courts would be competent to pass a decree and enforce it

Law enforcing agencies were bound to prohibit happening of offences and ensure sense of security to each single individual

Every participant of "Jirga" must be dealt with in accordance with law

Police officer failing to stop the "Jirga" should be prosecuted in the list of accused

State should establish 'Dar-ul-Amman' and safe-house(s) at each District/Taluka level where a victim family could safely reside/stay till she was able to send to her demanded place or she agreed to go with the person of her choice

Such safe-house should be managed and controlled by women only

Provincial Chief Secretary was directed by High Court to establish safe-house(s) at Taluka level and make necessary arrangements for the said houses and victims

Commissioners were directed to supervise the issue with regard to women in their respective divisions

District and Sessions Judges were directed to dispose of cases with regard to violence against women within a specified period

Constitutional petitions were disposed of accordingly.

2016 PCrLJ 993 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

Ss. 497 & 345Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302Qatl-i-amdHonour killingBail, refusal of

Trial of the case had almost completed; and the Trial Court was about to pass orders on the case,- Bail petition was mainly on the ground of compromise with the legal heirs of deceased

Question before the court was, whether legal heirs of the deceased, could effect compromise with accused, where the accused himself was one of the legal heirs of the deceased

Counsel for accused was afforded full opportunity for presenting any relevant case-law, but he failed

Bail was refused in circumstances.

2012 PLD 179 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 302Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 8(1) & 9Honour killingViolative of Fundamental Rights

Nobody had any right nor could anybody be allowed to take law in his own hands to take the life of anybody in the name of "Ghairat"

Neither the law nor the religion permitted the so­called honour killing which amounted to "Qatl-e-amd" simpliciter

Such iniquitous and vile act was violative of the Fundamental Rights as enshrined in Art.9 of the Constitution which provided that no person would be deprived of life or liberty except in accordance with law and any custom or usage in that respect was void under Art.8(1) of the Constitution.

2012 YLR 2923 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1850), Ss. 302/34Qatl-a-amd, common inten­tionBail, refusal ofHonour killing

Allegation against the accused and co-accused persons was that they murdered the deceased (son of the complainant) as they suspected him of having' developed illicit relationship with the daughter (deceased) of the accused

Contention of the accused was that he saw both the deceased in a compromising position and lost his self-control and committed the occurrence, which was a natural fallout of the immoral activity committed by both the deceased, and that the act of the accused was an act of righteousness which fell within the scope of recognized exceptions of law

Validity

First F.I.R. for the incident was reported to the police by the maternal grandfather of the deceased-girl, wherein the accused was nominated as the only perpetrator of the crime

Subsequently the complainant lodged the second F.I.R. (present F.I.R.) for the occurrence wherein he nominated four persons including the accused and maternal grandfather of the deceased-girl, who was also the complainant of the first F.I.R.

Occurrence admittedly took place at the house of the maternal grandfather of the deceased-girl, therefore, probability that the matter reported by him to the police was nearer to the truth, could not be ruled out

Honour killing or murder in the name of "ghairat" was not legitimate-Defence plea of the accused that he committed the crime under grave and sudden provocation was a circumstance to be looked into by the Trial Court after recording of evidence of the parties

Accused had allegedly committed the crime in a cold-blooded manner

Prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution case

Offence with which the accused was charged caught the prohibition of S.497(1), Cr.P.C

No reasons existed to believe that the case against the accused fell within the definition of further inquiry as defined in S. 497(2), Cr.P.C-Bail application of the accused was dismissed, accordingly.