No mercy for marriage-refusal murderer: SC

Rejects plea to commute death sentence to life sentence

ISLAMABAD:

The Supreme Court held that the principle of life expectancy cannot be applied to commute the death sentence of a man convicted of murdering a young woman because she had refused to marry him, declaring that the killing constituted a grave and aggravated offence with no mitigating circumstances.

A three-member bench, led by Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, dismissed the convict's review petition seeking to convert his death sentence to life imprisonment on the ground that he had spent 14 years in jail.

In a nine-page judgment authored by Justice Kakar, the court said the murder of an innocent woman solely because she declined a marriage proposal was an act that could not be justified by wounded pride, customary practices or claims of honour.

"It is a matter of profound shame to the conscience of any civilised society when a man fails to gain a woman's affection and responds to her refusal with violence instead of acceptance," the judgment said, adding that marriage was a mutual and voluntary covenant requiring the free consent of both parties.

The court observed that patriarchal systems often treated men as having an exclusive right to choose a woman, demand her hand in marriage and assert possession over her, irrespective of her wishes.

It said a woman exercised her fundamental right when she rejected a suitor, but men operating under a patriarchal mindset sometimes perceived such a refusal as an affront to their "honour". This attitude, the judgment noted, could lead to stalking, home invasions, acid attacks and femicide.

The bench said the case provided an opportunity to examine ego-driven customs and violence against women, particularly whether a woman's refusal to marry could constitute a mitigating circumstance in a murder case.

The court rejected that proposition, observing that treating a woman's lawful refusal as "provocation" or a mitigating factor was an absurd argument because no person had the right to deprive another of life merely for declining a marriage proposal.

"Accepting such an argument would constitute judicial endorsement of the notion that a woman's will is subordinate to a man's preference," the judgment stated.

The court emphasised that a woman's consent to marriage could not be treated as irrelevant in a male-dominated society. It said such a mindset was irreconcilable with Islam, which requires a woman's free assent as a prerequisite for a valid nikah.

Every adult, whether male or female, is equally entitled to decide whether, when and with whom to marry, the judgment said. This right is inherent and does not depend on permission or approval from a person's family, tribe or society.

"There is no excuse for such behaviour, regardless of whether it is committed in the name of honour, custom, injured pride, or emotions," the court observed.

The judgment also referred to Pakistan's obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

Article 16 of the convention requires states to ensure that women have the same right as men freely to choose a spouse and to enter into marriage only with their free and full consent.