Landmark ruling: Heir-convict deal not a clear mitigating factor, says SC
In order to reach a compromise in a ‘ta’zir’ case, all legal heirs of the deceased must agree to the terms.
PHOTO: AFP
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court declared on Friday that if a compromise is reached between the heir of a victim and the convict in a murder case their agreement will not automatically lower the death sentence into life imprisonment.
The court, however, did observe that a compromise with an heir of the victim may be a mitigating factor in determining the quantum of punishment.
The three-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, comprising Justice Dosat Muhammad Khan and Justice Qazi Faez, while hearing three appeals in murder cases, considered the legal proposition: whether a compromise with only one of the heirs, (not all the heirs) of the victim or deceased will have an effect on the sentence of death imposed upon each convict by the trial courts, which were upheld and affirmed by the high court, and whether such compromise merits reduction of each sentence to imprisonment for life.
After hearing arguments, Justice Qazi Faez Isa authored a judgment declaring that a compromise with one or more of the heirs of the victim would in the court’s opinion be amongst those facts and circumstances of the case that require to be taken into account when determining the quantum of punishment, but a compromise in itself would not be the conclusive factor as all facts and circumstances of the case must be considered.
“Merely because an heir has compromised with the convict will not automatically result in the imposition of a lesser punishment”.
The court said that it has been settled that in order to reach a compromise in a ‘ta’zir’ case, all the legal heirs of the deceased must agree to the compromise.
The judgment also stated that even if a compromise has been reached by all the heirs the courts still retain discretion, “having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case [whether to], acquit or award ta’zir to the offender according to the nature of the offence” as provided in the first proviso to section 338-E PPC.
The judgment also mentions that the court, despite any compromise with the heirs, may still punish the convict depending on the facts and circumstances of the ‘offence’.
“Under section 345 of the Code the court retains sole discretion. Both subsection (2) and (4) of section 345 specify that an offence cannot only be compounded with the permission of the court and subsection (5) of section 345 stipulates that, no composition for an offence shall be allowed without the leave of the court”
The judgment further says that once it is established that an offence has been committed by the accused the appropriate sentence is awarded to him/her, which in respect of qatl-i-amd as ta’zir could be either death or imprisonment for life. The section requires that the “facts and circumstances of the case” be considered in determining the appropriate sentence.
The bench went on to dismiss the three appeals and said that the facts and circumstances of each case have not provided any reason to reduce the sentence of death awarded by the trial courts and upheld by the High Court to a lower sentence of life imprisonment.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 7th, 2015.
The Supreme Court declared on Friday that if a compromise is reached between the heir of a victim and the convict in a murder case their agreement will not automatically lower the death sentence into life imprisonment.
The court, however, did observe that a compromise with an heir of the victim may be a mitigating factor in determining the quantum of punishment.
The three-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, comprising Justice Dosat Muhammad Khan and Justice Qazi Faez, while hearing three appeals in murder cases, considered the legal proposition: whether a compromise with only one of the heirs, (not all the heirs) of the victim or deceased will have an effect on the sentence of death imposed upon each convict by the trial courts, which were upheld and affirmed by the high court, and whether such compromise merits reduction of each sentence to imprisonment for life.
After hearing arguments, Justice Qazi Faez Isa authored a judgment declaring that a compromise with one or more of the heirs of the victim would in the court’s opinion be amongst those facts and circumstances of the case that require to be taken into account when determining the quantum of punishment, but a compromise in itself would not be the conclusive factor as all facts and circumstances of the case must be considered.
“Merely because an heir has compromised with the convict will not automatically result in the imposition of a lesser punishment”.
The court said that it has been settled that in order to reach a compromise in a ‘ta’zir’ case, all the legal heirs of the deceased must agree to the compromise.
The judgment also stated that even if a compromise has been reached by all the heirs the courts still retain discretion, “having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case [whether to], acquit or award ta’zir to the offender according to the nature of the offence” as provided in the first proviso to section 338-E PPC.
The judgment also mentions that the court, despite any compromise with the heirs, may still punish the convict depending on the facts and circumstances of the ‘offence’.
“Under section 345 of the Code the court retains sole discretion. Both subsection (2) and (4) of section 345 specify that an offence cannot only be compounded with the permission of the court and subsection (5) of section 345 stipulates that, no composition for an offence shall be allowed without the leave of the court”
The judgment further says that once it is established that an offence has been committed by the accused the appropriate sentence is awarded to him/her, which in respect of qatl-i-amd as ta’zir could be either death or imprisonment for life. The section requires that the “facts and circumstances of the case” be considered in determining the appropriate sentence.
The bench went on to dismiss the three appeals and said that the facts and circumstances of each case have not provided any reason to reduce the sentence of death awarded by the trial courts and upheld by the High Court to a lower sentence of life imprisonment.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 7th, 2015.