Summary: Background:Muhammad Aslam was murdered and another individual, Ijaz Ahmad, was injured in an incident in Chak No. 93/WB, District Vehari.Respondents No. 2 and 3 were booked and convicted for the offences under sections 302(b) and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (PPC), along with other sections.The trial court sentenced respondent No. 2 to death and respondent No. 3 to life imprisonment.---Issues:Whether the right to compound an offence of murder is inheritable under the Ta'zir regime.Whether the heirs of the victim, including heirs of the heirs, have the authority to compound the offence.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court held that under Ta'zir, the right to compound an offence of murder is inheritable, and it devolves to the heirs of the victim according to Islamic law.The court reasoned that the distinction between Qisas and Ta'zir regimes is clear, and while the principles of compounding under Qisas are well-established, Ta'zir cases are governed by different provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code.It was concluded that the heirs of the victim, as determined under Islamic inheritance law, have the authority to compound the offence under Ta'zir, even if they are heirs of the heirs of the victim.The court dismissed the appeal and directed the Federal Government to consider amending the law for more clarity.---Citations/Precedents:Sh. Muhammad Aslam and another v Shaukat Ali @ Shauka and others (1997 SCMR 1307)Zahid Rehman v The State (PLD 2015 SC 77)Abdul Rashid v The State (2013 SCMR 1281)---Quote:[Per Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, CJ]: Surviving heirs of the victim and not the heirs of the heirs of the victim have the right to compound in Tazir cases under Section 345 Cr.PC. [Per Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J, agreeing with his own reasons]: The brothers of the victim were excluded not because they were the heirs of the heirs of the victim but because they were not the heirs of the victim under the Islamic Law of inheritance.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background:In this case, Waheed Ahmad was convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (PPC) and sentenced to death by an Additional Sessions Judge in Jhelum. The Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench upheld the conviction and sentence. Waheed Ahmad then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the conviction and sentence. During the pendency of the appeal, a compromise was reached between the convict and the heirs of the deceased. The compromise was verified by the District & Sessions Judge, Jhelum, confirming its genuineness. A 3-member Bench of the Supreme Court accepted the compromise but differed on how to dispose of the main appeal.----Issues:Whether the compounding of the offence automatically leads to the acquittal of the accused, erasing their guilt.Whether the concept of acquittal extends to cases where compounding occurs, thereby absolving the accused of the charge.----Holding/Reasoning:The majority opinion, delivered by Sardar Tariq Masood, J., held that compounding of an offence under section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.) has the effect of an acquittal. The reasoning behind this was that compounding signifies reconciliation and forgiveness, rather than punishment. Therefore, once a compoundable offence is compounded, the accused is acquitted, and their guilt is considered absolved. This interpretation is consistent with the provisions of section 338-E(1), PPC, and previous legal precedents.----Citations/Precedents:PLD 2010 SC 695 - Chairman Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and another v. Mumtaz Khan: All acquittals, including those resulting from compounding of offences, are considered honorable and have the same legal effect.PLD 2016 SC 347 - Tariq Mehmood v. Naseer Ahmed: While not directly applicable to the present case, this precedent addressed issues related to compounding of offences under PPC.Dr. Muhammad Islam v. Government of N-W.F.P. through Secretary Food, Agricultural, Live Stock and Cooperative Department, Peshawar (1998 SCMR 1993): Established that all acquittals, regardless of the circumstances, are honorable and legally valid.

Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of specific sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), namely Sections 306(b)(c), 307(1)(b)(c), 309(1), and 310(1), on the grounds that these provisions, related to Qisas (retaliation) and Diyat (compensation), were against the Injunctions of Islam. Additionally, the petitioner contested Sections 313 and 338 of the PPC and Sections 345(1) & (2A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) on similar grounds. ----Issues: 1- Whether the impugned sections of the PPC and Cr.P.C. are against the Injunctions of Islam. 2- Whether the existing legal provisions adequately address the gravity of offenses like honor killing. 3- Whether the state has the authority to legislate and enact laws for maintaining law and order while adhering to Islamic principles. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The court dismissed the petition, holding that the provisions in question were not against the Injunctions of Islam. The court emphasized that the state has the authority to legislate within the limits prescribed by Islamic law. The court further noted that the existing legal framework, particularly the amended Section 311 PPC, already addresses the concerns raised by the petitioner, especially regarding offenses categorized as "fasad-fil-arz" (mischief on earth). The court found that the petitioner's arguments did not sufficiently demonstrate that the impugned sections violated Islamic principles. ----Citations/Precedents 1997 SCMR 1307 - Sheikh Muhammad Aslam & another Vs. Shauakat Ali alias Shauka 2004 SCMR 236 - Bashir Ahmed Vs. The State 2005 SCMR 599 - Khan Muhammad Vs. The State PLD 1996 SC 1 - Abdul Haque vs. The State and another 2000 SCMR 338 - Abdus Salam vs. The State PLD 2005 SC 252 - Muhammad Abdullah Yousaf and others vs. Miss Nadia Ayub and others PLD 2015 SC 77 - Zahid Rehman vs. The State PLD 1980 FSC 1 - Muhammad Riaz Versus Federal Government PLD 1989 SC 633 - Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court Judgment on compoundability of Qatl-e-Amd under Section 302 PPC

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)--- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 345(2) & 561-A--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence--- Compromise---Appellants were convicted and sentenced for lifeimprisonment as tazir---Appellants had challenged their conviction through appeal, whereascomplainant filed revision petition for enhancement of sentence awarded to the appellant---Pending appeal, appellants had entered into compromise with the legal heirs of the deceased,who had pardoned the appellants---Compromise documents were sent to the Trial Court forverification and recording the statements of the legal heirs of deceased to confirm as towhether the compromise effected between the parties was genuine or otherwise---Recordshowed that deceased had eight legal heirs comprising one widow and seven children---Outof seven children only one son and one daughter were major, while rest were minors beingbelow the age of 15-years---Trial Court had recorded the statements of complainant, realbrother of deceased, widow, a major son and a major daughter of deceased---Record showedthat legal heirs of deceased entered into compromise with the accused-appellants voluntarilyand without any coercion---Legal heirs of deceased had verified the contents of compromisedeed as they pardoned the accused-appellant in the name of Almighty Allah and did notintend to proceed further against the accused-appellants---Right of Diyat had been waived bythe legal heirs of deceased---Trial Court confirmed that the compromise arrived at betweenthe parties was genuine---Compromise deed was supported by the affidavits of the legal heirsof the deceased---Since the offence under S. 302(b), Penal Code, 1860 was compoundableand parties had entered into compromise, as such application under S. 345(2), Cr.P.C. wasaccepted subject to payment of Diyat amount as per S. 323, Penal Code, 1860 to the extent ofminors---Accused-appellants were acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction andsentence recorded by the Trial Court.(b) 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---Section 309, P.P.C. pertainingto waiver and S. 310, P.P.C. to compounding in case of murder were relevant only to the caseof Qisas---Matter of compromise between the parties, in case of Tazir, was governed andregulated by the provision of S. 345(2), Cr.P.C. read with S. 338-E, Penal Code, 1860.

Summary: Background: The petitioners, represented by the Director and Members of Al-Quran Research Academy, challenged various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), arguing that these provisions, specifically Sections 54, 55, 55A, 309, 310, 312, 313 PPC, and Section 345 Cr.P.C., were repugnant to the Injunctions of the Holy Quran. The petitioners contended that, according to Islamic principles, the punishment for Qatl-i-amd (intentional murder) should be solely death and should not be compoundable. ----Issues: 1- Whether the impugned sections of the PPC and Cr.P.C. are against the Injunctions of Islam. 2- Whether Islamic law permits the compoundability of the offense of Qatl-i-amd. 3- Whether the state has the authority to legislate compoundability in cases of Qisas (retribution). ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned sections were not against the Injunctions of Islam. The court emphasized that the Islamic legal framework allows for the compoundability of Qisas, provided that the heirs of the victim agree to it. The court pointed out that this understanding is consistent with the interpretations of Islamic law over the last 14 centuries. The court also highlighted that the right to forgive or compound the offense is granted to the victim's heirs, as long as it aligns with the broader public interest and maintains peace and order within society. The court underscored the importance of adhering to the interpretations of Quranic verses as established by Islamic scholars and jurists throughout history. ----Citations/Precedents PLD 1980 FSC 1 - Muhammad Riaz versus Federal Government PLD 1989 SC 633 - Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court Judgment on compoundability of Qatl-e-Amd under Section 302 PPC

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: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 309, 310, 311 & 323---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345---Qatl-eamd---Compromise---Waiver---Afw of Qisas---Payment of Badal-e-Sulh---Compromise wasarrived at between accused and legal heirs of the deceased, whereby legal heirs of the deceasedhad waived their right of Qisas without accepting any Diyat or compensation, and prayed thataccused be acquitted of the charge---Genuineness of compromise arrived at between the partieswas duly verified by the Sessions Judge---Out of nine legal heirs of the deceased two wereminors---Mother of said minors appeared before the court and recorded her statement on theirbehalf, with the assertion that she had waived the right of Qisas on behalf of the minors beingtheir mother and natural guardian, and that she had forgone the Diyat---Validity---In view ofS.309, P.P.C., there could be no waiver of right of Qisas to the extent of minors, only rightavailable would be compounding of right of Qisas, which could be exercised by 'Wali' of minoron their behalf---Such right was further protected by the Proviso contained in subsection (2) ofS.309, P.P.C.; there must be an acceptance of "Badal-e-Sulh" and value of the same would not beless than the value of Diyat---Waiver of right of Qisas by mother of the minors on their behalfwithout accepting any compensation, was neither legal nor just---Condition provided in S.310,P.P.C. of "Badal-e-Sulh", was to be observed being a legal requirement and withoutdetermination of value of "Badal-e-Sulh", the right of Qisas could not be allowed to becompounded---Settlement arrived at between the parties only would amount to waiver or compounding of right of Qisas, and order of acquittal was not its ultimate result---Discretion laywith the court to make an order of acquittal or conviction of the offender, keeping in view thefacts and circumstances of the case and nature of the offence---Accused was acquitted of thecharge under S.302(b), P.P.C.; he would remain in custody until he paid the amount of 'Badal-eSulh' determined as Rs.32,00,000 as per requirement of S.311, P.P.C.---Said amount would bedeposited in the National Savings in the names of minors in equal shares until they attainedmajority.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----S. 302(b)--- Qatl-e-Amd---Conviction---Appellant, brother of deceased woman, was apprehended red-handed after committing murder of his sister by firearm at court premises---Eyewitnesses including police officials and court staff fully corroborated the prosecution version---Recovery of weapon and spent cartridges supported ocular evidence---No previous enmity was alleged against the witnesses---Held, appellant acted with premeditated intent and motive rooted in honour due to the deceased's elopement and marriage without family's consent---Conviction under S.302(b), PPC upheld---Sentence of life imprisonment affirmed. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Amin v. The State 2016 SCMR 116 • Abdul Ghaffar v. The State 2015 SCMR 1064 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 345--- Compromise in murder cases---Scope---Compromise deed filed after remand from Supreme Court was rejected by trial court on ground that one of the deceased’s legal heirs (her husband) did not join the compromise---Held, Muhammad Fayyaz was legally recognized husband based on the deceased’s statements in earlier litigation where she admitted marriage and voluntary elopement---Marriage was acknowledged in acquittal judgments in zina and abduction cases, which attained finality---Even oral Nikah is valid in tribal traditions---Without participation of a legal heir, compromise deed under S.345 Cr.P.C. is ineffective---Trial court rightly dismissed compromise application. (c) Evidence Act / Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: ----Arts. 17 & 79--- Confessional statement---Voluntariness and evidentiary value---Accused’s judicial confession was recorded after due caution, warning, and satisfaction of magistrate---Retracted confession without proof of coercion was not sufficient to render it inadmissible---Held, confession supported by ocular and forensic evidence remained reliable. (d) Criminal Trial: ----Interested witness---Police officials as witnesses---Validity---Prosecution witnesses were police officials escorting deceased to court; they had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant---Their presence at the scene was natural and their testimony was consistent and corroborated by independent circumstances---Held, merely being police officials does not disqualify them as credible witnesses. (e) Criminal Law: ----Motive---Honour killing---Deceased had eloped and married without family’s consent; motive rooted in perceived loss of family honour---Held, motive was sufficiently established and lent support to prosecution case. (f) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 382-B--- Benefit of sentence already undergone---Granted. ----Disposition: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld; appellant taken into custody to serve remainder of sentence.

Summary: Compromise. Nothing on record to impede the process of compromise and punish the accuse u/s 311 P.P.C.---Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345---Qatl-i-amd---Compromise---During pendency of appeal legal heirs of the deceased had compromised with the accused andvoluntarily granted "Afw" to him in the name of Almighty Allah---Nothing existed on recordto impede the process of compromise or persuade to punish the accused by way of Tazir underS.311, P.P.C.---Compromise arrived at by the parties was consequently accepted and theaccused was acquitted accordingly

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 299 to 338---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 203-F---Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam---Offences against human body---Provisions of Ss. 299 to 338, Penal Code, dealing with offences against human body, held repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam as they: (a) do not provide for Qisas in cases of Qatl-al-Amd (deliberate murder) and Jurh-al-Amd (deliberate hurt) as prescribed by the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah; (b) lack provision for Diyat in cases of Shibh-ul-Amd and Khata for both murder and hurt; (c) do not recognize Sulh (compromise) between parties based on agreed compensation in cases of Qatl and Jurh; (d) fail to allow the offender to be pardoned by the victim or heirs in cases of Jurh or Qatl, respectively; (e) do not exempt non-pubert or insane offenders from the death penalty in murder cases; (f) do not define distinct categories of Qatl and Jurh with their prescribed punishments according to Islamic injunctions. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 109---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 203-F---Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam---Provision of S. 109, making abettors liable to the same punishment as the principal offender regardless of varying degrees of abetment, held repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) and Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 54, Ss. 401-402-B---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 203-F---Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam---Provisions empowering the Central or Provincial Governments to commute the death sentence in cases of Qatl-al-Amd or Jurh-ul-Amd are repugnant to Islamic injunctions, as they violate Huqooq-ul-Ibad (rights of individuals). (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 345---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 203-F---Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam---Provision restricting the composition of offences to specified offences against the person, held repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 381---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 203-F---Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam---Failure to allow heirs of a murder victim to pardon the offender or enter into a compromise, even at the last moment before execution, held repugnant to Islamic injunctions. (f) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 337 to 339-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 203-F---Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam---Provisions allowing tender of pardon to an offender without consulting the victim or heirs of the victim in cases of Qatl or Jurh, held repugnant to Islamic injunctions. (g) Evidence Act (I of 1872) ----S. 133---Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, Art. 16---Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam---Section 133 of the Evidence Act, prescribing conditions for using uncorroborated testimony of accomplices, is no longer applicable due to its repeal by the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. ------ Disposition: The provisions declared repugnant to Islamic injunctions shall cease to have effect from 23rd March 1990. Appeals relating to personal grievances dismissed or referred to appropriate forums. Remaining appeals partially allowed as per findings on specific provisions.