Shahzeb Khan murder case: Attorney general asks for SC’s advice

In a written statement, AGP sought consultation over Qisas waiver in the murder case.

ISLAMABAD:

Attorney General of Pakistan Munir A Malik has sought the Supreme Court’s advice on the issue of waiver of Qisas (literally, Qisas means ‘equal retaliation’ but it seems that it has been used in the sense of ‘monetary compensation’) and compoundability of offences.

In his written statement submitted in the apex court, the attorney general has asked the court 18 relevant questions in the backdrop of Shahzeb murder case.

It asked: “Whether the Supreme Court ought to pronounce a comprehensive and authoritative judgment on the issue of waiver of Qisas and compoundability of offences, under the provisions of sections 309, 310, 338-E, PPC, 1860, and section 345, CrPc 1898, especially since there are a number of authoritative Supreme Court precedents on this issue, or whether the law on this issue should be allowed to develop on a case to case basis?”



The statement asks whether the pronouncement of the Supreme Court should be limited to cases of Qatl-e-Amd (murder by intent), or should such a pronouncement be in relation to all offences involving the waiver of Qisas and compoundability of offences, under the provisions of sections 338-E, PPC, 1860, and Sections 345 CrPC, 1898?

Whether the offences specified in the first two columns of the table under section 345(1), CrPC, 1898, are compoundable, without the permission of the court? What is the relationship between the Sections 345(1) CrPC, 1898, and the Sections 345(4) (5) (5A), CrPC, 1898?

The attorney general also asked whether it is a condition for the waiver of Qisas and compoundability of offences that the offender should admit to committing the offence, show remorse, ask for forgiveness from Allah and from the legal heirs of the victim(s)?

Does the ‘acquittal of the accused’ under Section 345(6) CrPC, 1898, have the same meaning as the ‘acquittal of the accused’ in normal criminal parlance?

Is the permission of the competent court a condition precedent to the right to waive Qisas and to compound the offence not an absolute right?

In the context of the waiver of Qisas and compoundability of the offence, or the right to compromise, what is meant by ‘free will and without fear, coercion, undue influence and undue pressure and what procedure should the competent court adopt to ensure that the right to waive Qisas and compoundability of the offence, or the right to compromise, has been exercised out of freewill and without fear, coercion, undue influence and undue pressure?

Whether it is the duty of the state to ensure that the right to waive Qisas and compoundability of the offence, or the right to compromise, has been exercised out of freewill and without fear, coercion, undue influence and undue pressure? What measures (that is, physical protection, legal aid, etc) is the state’s duty to provide to the legal heirs and victim in order to ensure that it performs this duty?

Whether any judicial finding about Fasad-fil-Arz and imposition of the sentence of either death, life imprisonment and imprisonment of up to 14 years, without substantive due process, would not be a violation of Article 10A of the Constitution 1973. Whether the offences under Anti-Terrorism Act (ATC), 1997, are compoundable, or subject to waiver of Qisas or not?

To what extent are the competent courts powers to impose conditions limited by the consent of the parties? Whether the lack of implementation of Section 338-G, PPC, 1898, (relating to providing finances to poor prisoners to benefit from this right of Qisas and compoundability of offences and mechanism protecting the rights of the victims for the purpose of compensation) is not a violation of Article 4 & 25 of the Pakistan Constitution, 1973.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 2^nd, 2013.