Summary: (a) Qatl-i-amd—Afw (forgiveness) by heir—Effect on Tazir death—Fasād fil-arḍ threshold—Where an adult sane wali validly waives Qisās (Section 309 APC), the court’s residual power to award death under Tazir (Section 311 APC) survives only in exceptional cases meeting the doctrinal standard of fasād fil-arḍ (systemic/public disorder)—Absent such aggravation, overriding a lawful afw by imposing Tazir death is impermissible. Qur’anic scheme (Al-Baqarah 2:178; Al-Mā’idah 5:33) recognized; forgiveness is a divinely sanctioned concession and must be given legal effect. (b) Penal discretion under Section 311 APC—Contours—“Fasād fil-arḍ” requires conduct transcending private grievance and threatening public order (e.g., terror, serial violence, armed insurrection). Mere gravity of a single domestic homicide, without demonstrable societal destabilization, is insufficient to justify Tazir death once Qisās stands waived. (c) Statutory framework—Sections 302(a)–(c), 309, 311 APC—Mapped—(i) Qisās if not forgiven; (ii) Tazir (death or life) where Qisās not applicable; (iii) life imprisonment as Tazir where circumstances so warrant—Valid, unconditional afw by a wali extinguishes retributive death; exceptional Tazir death requires a reasoned finding of fasād fil-arḍ. (d) Proportionality and welfare considerations—Islamic criminal law emphasizes reconciliation and social welfare—Executing Tazir death in the present familial context would orphan minor children and offend proportionality; life impri

Summary: (a) Criminal Law ----Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 345(2) & (7) Compounding of offence—Resiling from compromise—Legal effect—Appellant, accused of murder under S. 302, PPC, entered into a compromise with the deceased’s legal heirs at the bail stage—Subsequently, heirs resiled from the compromise at trial—Trial court and High Court refused to accept the earlier compromise—Held, compounding of an offence under S. 302, PPC falls under S. 345(2), Cr.P.C., which requires court permission—A compromise at the bail stage does not automatically entitle the accused to acquittal if later withdrawn—As per S. 345(7), Cr.P.C., no offence can be compounded except as provided by law—The trial court must verify the legal heirs, record statements, and formally allow compounding—No valid compromise existed at trial; appeal dismissed. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Akram v. Abdul Waheed 2005 SCMR 1342 • Zahid Rehman v. The State PLD 2015 SC 77 • Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah v. Syed Sabir Hussain Shah 1998 SCMR 466 (b) Criminal Procedure ----Effect of compromise at bail stage—No automatic entitlement to acquittal Compromise at bail stage—Whether enforceable at trial—Appellant sought acquittal based on a compromise reached at the bail stage, arguing that once a compromise is acted upon, it cannot be resiled from—Held, S. 345(2), Cr.P.C. requires a trial court to allow compounding of an offence before it takes legal effect—A compromise at the bail stage does not bind the trial court unless reaffirmed by the legal heirs before the court—Trial court correctly rejected the compromise when the heirs withdrew consent—High Court’s decision upholding the rejection found legally sound—Appeal dismissed. Cited Cases: • Rana Awais v. S.H.O. Police Station People’s Colony 2001 P.Cr.L.J. 241 • Naurang Rai v. Kidar Nath 29 Cr.L.J. 1928 • State of U.P. v. Nanhey AIR 1968 Allahabad 394 (c) Islamic Criminal Law ----Waiver (Afw) under S. 309, PPC vs. Compounding (Sulh) under S. 310, PPC—Applicability Qisas and Ta’zir—Distinction—Appellant argued that waiver (Afw) under S. 309, PPC should be treated differently from compounding (Sulh) under S. 310, PPC—Held, S. 309 and S. 310, PPC apply only in cases of Qisas, which require either (i) a confession of guilt before the trial court or (ii) Tazkiya-tul-Shahood of prosecution witnesses—If these conditions are not met, the case remains one of Ta’zir and follows the procedural requirements of S. 345, Cr.P.C.—The trial court remains the competent authority to decide whether a valid waiver or compromise exists—In the present case, no valid waiver or compounding occurred under the law—Appeal dismissed. Cited Cases: • Zahid Rehman v. The State PLD 2015 SC 77

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S. 302(a)-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)-Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether lesser sentence in such-like case could be awarded, when case under Hudood Ordinance was got registered against deceased and her husband but they were acquitted upto the level of Shariat Appellate Bench of Supreme Court, therefore, it was a sufficient proof of the petitioner/complainant and deceased being husband and wife, in such circumstances the ground of sudden provocation or family honour would not arise at all. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302 & 304-Qatl-i-Amd-Punishment-Principles-Qatl-i-Amd is punishable with death as Qisas if proof in either of the forms specified in S.304 P.P.C. is available-In absence of such proof Qatl-i-Amd can be visited with punishment of death or imprisonment for life as Tazir under S.302(b), P.P.C. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 304 & 309-Right of Qisas, waiver of-Principles-Adult sane Wali, under S.309, P.P.C. can waive his right of Qisas even without compensation but only if proof in terms of S.304 P.P.C. (for Qisas) is available against accused. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302(b), 309 & 338(E)-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345-Qatl-i-Amd-Punishment as Tazir-Compounding of offence-Principles-Conviction/sentence under Tazir can be compounded only if all heirs forgive the offender and relevant provisions for compounding such offences are S.338 (E), P.P.C. read with S.345, Cr.P.C. and not S.309, P.P.C. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302 (b) (c), 309 & 338(E)-Reappraisal of evidence-Qatl-i-Amd-Punishment as Tazir-Grave and sudden provocation, principle of-Applicability-Partial compromise-Effect-Complainant and his wife contracted marriage against the wishes of the family of his wife-Both accused armed with guns in a broad-daylight, chased the victims who tried to take refuge in a nearby hotel but accused broke open the door and made repeated fires, as a result complainant was injured and his wife was murdered-During trial, only the parents of deceased forgave the accused and compounded the offence, thus Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced them to 25 years of imprisonment-High Court found it to be a case of grave and sudden provocation, therefore, reduced the sentence to what they had already undergone-Validity-Case was that of partial compromise-Offence of Tazir under S.302 P.P.C. could be compounded only by the heirs of Victim-All heirs did not compound the offence but only parents of deceased had done so and not her husband-Accused having been tried and convicted as Tazir, they could be extended benefit of compromise only if all legal heirs had compounded the offence-High Court failed to appreciate that neither S.302(c) nor 5.309, P.P.C. which stipulated Afw by Wali were applicable as those would have been relevant only if evidence led trial and sentence awarded was for Qatl-i-Amd as Qisas-Offence of Qatl-i-Amd having been proved against accused as Tazir and all heirs of victim having not compounded the offence, the accused ought to have been sentenced under S.302(b), P.P.C. to life imprisonment and not under S.302(c), P.P.C.-Deceased and complainant claimed to be husband and wife pursuant to a registered Nikah Nama, veracity of which was affirmed by Federal Shariat Court in judgment delivered subsequent to the occurrence-Motive alleged, weapons used, the manner of attack and place of occurrence reflected pre-meditation and planning both-Provocation was neither sudden nor grave-Ground of grave and sudden provocation taken by High Court to reduce sentence was not available to warrant award of lesser punishment-Judgment thus, was not sustainable-Supreme Court set aside the sentence awarded by High Court and restored that of Trial Court-Appeal was allowed. Walayat v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 111; Riaz Ahmed v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 43; Manzoor Hussain and 4 others v. The State 1994 SCMR 1327; Muhammad Aslam v. Shaukat Ali 1997 SCMR 1307; Niaz Ahmed v. State PLD 2003 SC 635; Mohib Ali v. The State 1985 SCMR 2055; Ali Muhammad v. Ali Muhammad and another PLD 1996 SC 274 and Abdul Zahid and another v. The State 2000 SCMR 406 ref. Ch. Munir Sadiq, Deputy P.G. Punjab for the State.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302(a), (b), 304, 309(1)(2) & 310(l) - Qatl-i-Amd - Punishment of death as Qisas-Essentials-Proof, liability or Afw or compounding of Qisas (Sulah) in Qatl-i-Amd-Principles-Applicability of Ss.309(1)(2) & 310(1), P.P.C.-Scope-Death sentence as Qisas can only be awarded when the proof of Qatl-i-Amd liable to Qisas as prescribed under S.304, P.P.C. is available-Where either of the forms of proof as prescribed in Ss.302(a), (b), 304, 309(1)(2) & 310, P.P.C. was not available in the case because neither the accused confessed his guilt nor evidence as required under Art. 17, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was available, punishment of death as Qisas under S.302(a), P.P.C. could not be awarded-Provisions of Ss.309(1)(2) & 310(1), P.P.C. would apply to the cases where punishment had been recorded as Qisas and not as Ta'zir as such the Afw of Qisas and compounding of Qisas in case of Qatl-i-Amd would apply only to the case where conviction and sentence had been recorded under S.302(a), P.P.C. and not to the case where conviction and sentence had been recorded as Ta'zir under S.302(b), P.P.C.-Offender having been punished under Ta'zir, provision of Ss.309 & 310, P.P.C. would not be applicable-Where the accused had been awarded sentence for murder as Ta'zir and not as Qisas, one of the legal heirs could not waive his right of Qisas, compromise the offence or accept Badl-i-Sulh. Sh. Muhammad Aslam and another v. Shaukat Ali alias Shauka and others 1997 SCMR 1307 and Manzoor and others v. The State and others 1992 SCMR 2037 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -Ss. 345(2) [as amended by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (II of 1997), S.14]-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.309(2) & 302(b)-Compounding of offences-Scope-Death sentence awarded for murder as Ta'zir can be compounded by all the legal heirs of the deceased with the permission of the Court concerned-Where in a case only one of the legal heirs of the deceased had compromised with the accused and the rest of the heirs had been opposing the compromise, punishment awarded under S.302(b), P.P.C. could neither be compounded in absence of other legal heirs nor provision of S.309(2), P.P.C. could be pressed into service in such case.