Punishment fits the crime? Money trumps blood in settling scores
Time and again, the conditions for the application of Qisas and Diyat have been debated.
Court needs to throw away forced settlements after scrutiny, say former judges. PHOTO: FILE
KARACHI:
The Islamic laws of Qisas (retribution) and Diyat (blood money) have been part of Pakistan’s legal system since the country’s inception but time and again, the conditions for their application have been debated. The most recent example being the high-profile Shahzeb Khan murder case in which the family decided to pardon the suspects after they were convicted of the crime.
“These laws are beneficial for us, but we didn’t agree to a compromise just to get rid of the case,” said Ashraf Jatoi, elder brother of Shahrukh Jatoi, who was given the death sentence for the murder of Shahzeb Khan. “We [the family] are happy that the case has been settled but we suffered a lot during the course of the trial which is why the family is shifting their business abroad.”
Even when verdicts are announced, appeals and other legal tactics can drag on cases for years, causing the plaintiff or their family to compromise outside the court room. “Justice delayed is justice denied. I took the decision of making a compromise with the killers of my brother after I was disheartened by the judicial system,” said Salik Shah, whose younger brother Sarfaraz Shah was killed by a Ranger in 2011.
The Anti-Terrorism Court announced its verdict in less than two month but the case lingered on for almost two years when it went to the appellant Sindh High Court, said Salik. “Every hearing opened up our old wounds and we couldn’t bear the psychological effects of the incident anymore,” Salik told The Express Tribune, who requested the appellate court to pardon his brother’s killer in the name of Allah in May. “My father has survived two paralysis strokes that resulted in memory loss. His doctor told me that he was suffering from depression and I knew it was up to me to help him and my family move on.”
Compromising conditions
Going by the broad outline of the law, heirs of the deceased have the right to compromise with the offenders. But legal experts believe that the courts need to scrutinise every detail to ascertain whether the settlement was by choice or under pressure. “Unfortunately, the courts are not fulfilling their responsibilities. They should not accept compromises in a day, as done in the Raymond Davis case where the matter was solved within hours,” said former Supreme Court judge, Justice Wajihuddin Ahmed.
He explained that Qisas has been declared as “Haq” (right) in the Holy Quran and Diyat as “Jaiz” (legitimate). “We need to keep in mind, however, that every case is different. There is nothing wrong in taking blood money as financial support but the court should reject all those compromises where element of force is involved.”
At risk of being ‘influenced’
Speaking specifically on the cases where personnel of the paramilitary forces were involved, Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, said that the bereaved family faces great pressure. “It is the responsibility of the presiding officer of the trial court to make sure that the parties enter into the compromise voluntarily and there is no pressure on the exercise of free-will,” he said.
Senior lawyer Zahid Bukhari, who represented Raymond Davis, however, was in favour of Qisas and Diyat, saying the laws have been declared ‘beneficial for society’ in Quran and Shariah. “The legal heirs of the victim have no complaints against the compromise they entered into and neither have they challenged it in court saying they were under pressure - the hue and cry is all just a misunderstanding,” he said, adding that the court only accepts a settlement after scrutinising all details. “The laws of Qisas and Diyat don’t need to be changed, we just need to understand them to implement them.”
Published in The Express Tribune, November 15th, 2013.
The Islamic laws of Qisas (retribution) and Diyat (blood money) have been part of Pakistan’s legal system since the country’s inception but time and again, the conditions for their application have been debated. The most recent example being the high-profile Shahzeb Khan murder case in which the family decided to pardon the suspects after they were convicted of the crime.
“These laws are beneficial for us, but we didn’t agree to a compromise just to get rid of the case,” said Ashraf Jatoi, elder brother of Shahrukh Jatoi, who was given the death sentence for the murder of Shahzeb Khan. “We [the family] are happy that the case has been settled but we suffered a lot during the course of the trial which is why the family is shifting their business abroad.”
Even when verdicts are announced, appeals and other legal tactics can drag on cases for years, causing the plaintiff or their family to compromise outside the court room. “Justice delayed is justice denied. I took the decision of making a compromise with the killers of my brother after I was disheartened by the judicial system,” said Salik Shah, whose younger brother Sarfaraz Shah was killed by a Ranger in 2011.
The Anti-Terrorism Court announced its verdict in less than two month but the case lingered on for almost two years when it went to the appellant Sindh High Court, said Salik. “Every hearing opened up our old wounds and we couldn’t bear the psychological effects of the incident anymore,” Salik told The Express Tribune, who requested the appellate court to pardon his brother’s killer in the name of Allah in May. “My father has survived two paralysis strokes that resulted in memory loss. His doctor told me that he was suffering from depression and I knew it was up to me to help him and my family move on.”
Compromising conditions
Going by the broad outline of the law, heirs of the deceased have the right to compromise with the offenders. But legal experts believe that the courts need to scrutinise every detail to ascertain whether the settlement was by choice or under pressure. “Unfortunately, the courts are not fulfilling their responsibilities. They should not accept compromises in a day, as done in the Raymond Davis case where the matter was solved within hours,” said former Supreme Court judge, Justice Wajihuddin Ahmed.
He explained that Qisas has been declared as “Haq” (right) in the Holy Quran and Diyat as “Jaiz” (legitimate). “We need to keep in mind, however, that every case is different. There is nothing wrong in taking blood money as financial support but the court should reject all those compromises where element of force is involved.”
At risk of being ‘influenced’
Speaking specifically on the cases where personnel of the paramilitary forces were involved, Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, said that the bereaved family faces great pressure. “It is the responsibility of the presiding officer of the trial court to make sure that the parties enter into the compromise voluntarily and there is no pressure on the exercise of free-will,” he said.
Senior lawyer Zahid Bukhari, who represented Raymond Davis, however, was in favour of Qisas and Diyat, saying the laws have been declared ‘beneficial for society’ in Quran and Shariah. “The legal heirs of the victim have no complaints against the compromise they entered into and neither have they challenged it in court saying they were under pressure - the hue and cry is all just a misunderstanding,” he said, adding that the court only accepts a settlement after scrutinising all details. “The laws of Qisas and Diyat don’t need to be changed, we just need to understand them to implement them.”
Published in The Express Tribune, November 15th, 2013.