P L D 2020 Supreme Court 620
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b) & 302(c)---Murder of wife---Re-appraisal of evidence---Whether there was grave and sudden provocation---Plea of accused-husband that his deceased-wife was a woman of bad character---Held, that there was nothing on record to substantiate such plea---Accused also did not lead evidence to establish this nor repeated this allegation by opting to testify on oath under S.340(2), Cr.P.C., undoubtedly, to avoid being cross-examined---Moreover, if the statement of accused under S.342, Cr.P.C. (which was not on oath and regarding which the accused could not be cross-examined) was accepted in its entirety then too it did not make out a case of grave and sudden provocation---What the statement of accused under S.342, Cr.P.C. disclosed was that he was familiar with the deceased's character, yet he elected to marry her but realized that she had not reformed---On the fateful day the accused had merely seen his wife in the company of a man, without observing indecent or even improper behaviour on either of their parts, thus there was no fact to amount to grave and sudden provocation---If what was alleged by the accused was accepted to be true then too it would not bring his case within the ambit of S.302(c), P.P.C. before the proviso was added to it---Conviction and sentence of accused under S.302(b), P.P.C. was maintained---[Muhammad Qasim v. State (PLD 2018 SC 840) not to be categorized as having decided a question of law or based upon or enunciating a principle of law]---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b) & 302(c)---Qatl-i-amd---Grave and sudden provocation [Exception 1 to the erstwhile S.300, P.P.C.]---Scope---Cases under S.302(c), P.P.C. were those which were covered by the five listed Exceptions to the erstwhile S.300, P.P.C.---Exception 1 to the erstwhile section 300 stipulated that, 'culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation…'---However, grave and sudden provocation was not to be considered subjectively, that is by accepting what was the state of mind of the offender, but was a question of fact to be determined by objective criteria as the Explanation to Exception 1, stipulated, 'Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact'.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b) & 302(c)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Whether there was grave and sudden provocation---Husband confessing to murdering his wife in the name of honour---Confession of accused, reliance upon---Principle that 'where there was other evidence, a portion of the confession may, in the light of that evidence, be rejected while acting upon the remainder with the other evidence' ('the principle')---In the present case the conviction of the accused was not based on his statement (confession) alone---Two eyewitnesses had seen him commit the murder, both of whom were subjected to cross-examination but maintained what they had seen and mostly remained consistent with one another---Eyewitnesses' testimony that the accused had fired on the deceased with a pistol, was further supported by the postmortem report---During the postmortem, a fetus about 12 to 14 weeks' was also discovered by the doctor, who was not cross-examined by the accused, despite having been provided an opportunity to do so---Accused had also not disowned the paternity of the fetus in his S.342, Cr.P.C statement---Present case came within 'the principle' and as such the accused's attempt to provide a justification for the killing of his wife was inconsequential---Conviction and sentence of accused under S.302(b), P.P.C was maintained---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(a), 302(b) & 302(c)---Qatl-i-amd in the name of honour/ ghairat---Holy Qur'an and law of Pakistan did not permit killing on the ground of ghairat (ghairatun in Arabic), nor prescribed a lesser punishment for such killings---Such crimes attracted clause (a) or clause (b) of S.302, P.P.C., for which the punishment was either death or imprisonment for life---For deterring such killings the term 'ghairat' was not to be used to describe them.
The word 'ghairat' nor the Arabic 'ghairatun' was used in the Holy Qur'an. The Holy Qur'an also did not permit killing on the ground of adultery, let alone on the ground of ghairat (ghairatun in Arabic), nor prescribed a lesser punishment for such killings. The law of Pakistan also did not permit this.
By stating that murder was committed on the pretext of ghairat (honour) the murderer hoped to provide some justification for the crime. It may also elevate the murderer's social status with those not familiar with what Almighty Allah Commands in the Holy Qur'an. There was no honour in such killings. Parliament was rightly concerned with the prevalence of such killings and enacted legislation to dissuade, if not stop such crimes. It did so by ensuring that offenders did not avail of the benefit of section 302(c), P.P.C., for which the maximum punishment was twenty-five years imprisonment but which did not prescribe a minimum punishment. Parliament specifically stipulated that such crimes attracted clause (a) or clause (b) of section 302, P.P.C., for which the punishment was either death or imprisonment for life.
The woman or the girl who was killed in the name or pretext of honour had no chance to redeem her honour. She was deprived of both her life and reputation. Killing was never honourable, and a murder should not be categorized as such. It would help deter such killings if the term 'ghairat' was not used to describe them. Respect and language played an important role to bring about a positive change in society and using terminology such as ghairat or honour (for murder) was not helpful.
0 Comments