Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 310 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case NOOR REHMAN vs State Ss

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 310 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case NOOR REHMAN VS State Ss. 302, 322 & 34---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 345---Qatl-i-amd, qatl-bis-sabab, common intention, possessing illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Compounding the offence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased---Motive behind the occurrence was that the accused were suspecting the deceased to be of immoral---Record showed that legal heirs of the deceased had effected compromise with the accused persons at trial stage---Murder having been allegedly committed on the pretext of honour, was non-compoundable in terms of S. 345, Cr.P.C, however; the said bar was introduced through Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences in the Name of or on Pretext of Honour) Act, 2016 and later on extended to PATA---Thus, the main question which arose at that juncture was that as to whether the said Act could be applied to the present case which was committed prior to the enforcement of the Act---Admittedly, the clog on compromise in honor killing cases was introduced through Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences in the Name or on Pretext of Honour) Act, 2016---Prior to that the offence of honour killing was compoundable though of course with permission of Court, however, thereafter the said Amendment Act, 2016, was brought restricting compromise in honor killing cases---Moot questions before the Court were whether the said Act would have retrospective effect on the present case and what would be the relevant date of composition of the offence in question---Relevant date of composition of offence would be the date on which the occurrence took place---Alleged honour killing took place in 2011 and by that time the said offence was compoundable albeit with permission of Court, therefore, the bar of compromise introduced through the Amendment Act, 2016, could not be made retrospectively applicable to the case---Certainly, the bar to compound the offence so introduced in the Amendment Act, 2016, would take away certain rights of the present accused persons available to them under the existing law---Established rule in such eventuality was that every statute which took away or impaired vested rights enjoyed by a person under the existing law must be presumed to be intended not to have retrospective effect---Although the said rule was not applicable in matters of procedure, however, if a statute dealing together with rights and procedure at the same time then the Courts must prefer the construction to protect the existing rights under the old procedure---Report of the Trial Court showed that major legal heirs of the deceased had effected a genuine compromise with the present accused persons without any pressure whereas interests of the minor legal heirs had been protected through deposit of their share in Diyat amount in profitable account---Resultantly, the appeal was accepted on the basis of compromise, the impugned judgment was set aside and accused persons were acquitted of the charges.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 310 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case NOOR REHMAN vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 310 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ