What is the purpose of Diyat?
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case began when the Supreme Court took suo motu notice after learning that a poor electrician, Shahid Ali, whose 12-year-old son Bilal was murdered, had allegedly been pressured by a politically connected person and the police into compromising with the accused killers in exchange for compensation money that was not even fully paid to him.
During the hearing, the Court reviewed reports showing the complainant was paid in installments, with a significant portion only handed over after the Court intervened. It found evidence suggesting coercion and harassment, noted that some accused had been arrested on related charges while others had secured bail, and ordered that those already arrested be released on modest bail while directing the investigating agency to pursue the case seriously.
The Court also used this opportunity to clarify an important legal question: how should diyat, the compensation paid to a victim's family in exchange for a compromise in a murder case, be calculated? The Court ruled that diyat should be based on the compensation rate prevailing at the time the compromise is actually made, not the rate at the time of the crime. It also clarified that compensation can include both movable and immovable property, valued according to prevailing rates at the time of compromise. In doing so, the Court disagreed with a contrary view previously expressed by the Federal Shariat Court. This ruling matters because it protects victims from receiving outdated, undervalued compensation and guards against pressure to accept unfair settlements.
یہ مقدمہ اس وقت شروع ہوا جب سپریم کورٹ کو معلوم ہوا کہ ایک غریب الیکٹریشن شاہد علی، جس کے بارہ سالہ بیٹے بلال کو قتل کیا گیا تھا، کو مبینہ طور پر ایک بارسوخ سیاسی شخصیت اور پولیس کے دباؤ میں لا کر قاتلوں کے ساتھ صلح پر مجبور کیا گیا، اور اس کے بدلے میں دی جانے والی معاوضے کی رقم بھی اسے مکمل طور پر ادا نہیں کی گئی۔ اس پر سپریم کورٹ نے از خود نوٹس لیا۔
سماعت کے دوران عدالت نے وہ رپورٹیں دیکھیں جن سے ظاہر ہوتا تھا کہ مدعی کو رقم قسطوں میں ادا کی گئی، اور اس کا بڑا حصہ صرف اس وقت دیا گیا جب عدالت نے خود مداخلت کی۔ عدالت کو ایسے شواہد ملے جن سے جبر اور ہراسانی کے شبہات پیدا ہوئے۔ عدالت نے یہ بھی نوٹ کیا کہ کچھ ملزمان کو متعلقہ الزامات میں گرفتار کیا گیا تھا جبکہ باقی نے ضمانت حاصل کر لی تھی۔ عدالت نے حکم دیا کہ جو ملزمان پہلے سے گرفتار ہی
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 2012 SC 231 [Original Jurisdiction] Present: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry , HCJ & Khilji Arif Hussain , J. SUO MOTU ACTION REGARDING NON-PAYMENT OF THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT TO THE POOR ELECTRICIAN, WHO HAS BEEN PRESSURIZED BY THE POLITICAL FIGURE OF PML(N) AS WELL AS BY THE POLICE TO ENTER INTO A COMPROMISE WITH THE ACCUSED MURDERERS OF HIS 12-YEAR OLD SON Suo Motu Case No. 19 of 2011, decided 13.12.2011. Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 323 & Scope--Amount of diyat --Object and purpose of recovery of diyat amount is that the victim would be compensated according to rate which was prevailing at time when compromise was effected. [P. 233] A Diyat -- ----Minimum rate of compensation of diyat amount was to be fixed by Court, according to notification, issued by Federal government, on every financial years, therefore, Supreme Court was not inclined to agree with opinion expressed in judgment of FSC--Supreme Court declared that as far as amount of Diyat , the same would be determined according to prevailing rate of diyat at time when compromise was effected, because it was the accused who actually requested the victim party to favor and if as result, such extended then according to law, payment of compensation would be determined and made at rate prevailing at the time when compromise was effected and executed by Court. [P. 233] B & C Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 310--Value of moveable and immoveable property--According to S. 310, PPC, the word property includes moveable and immovable property, therefore, compensation equal to NISAB prevailing at time when compromise was effected after determining the value of moveable and immoveable property can also be paid. [P. 233] D Maulvi Anwar- ul - Haq , Attorney General for Pakistan, Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana , Addl. A.G. Punjab & Mr. Jawad Hassan, Addl. A.G. Punjab for in Attendance. Date of hearing: 13.12.2011. Order The learned Attorney General for Pakistan as well as the learned Additional Advocates General, Punjab , have addressed their arguments on the questions framed by this Court.
2. Mr. Bilal Siddique Kamyana , CPO Faisalabad, has submitted a report, according to which investigation is being conducted against the accused persons namely Rana Imran and others, who are allegedly involved in the case FIR No. 1015, dated 05.09.2011, under Sections 302, 148 and 149, PPC, PS Gulberg , Faisalabad, registered on the complaint of Shahid Ali, an electrician by profession, whose son Bilal aged about 12 years was allegedly murdered, when he alongwith the deceased and his nephew were engaged for electrification on the marriage function of Adnan Aslam .
3. In respect of the allegation of the complainant that he was pressurized to enter into a compromise with the accused persons in lieu whereof he was initially paid Rs. 100,000/-; later on Rs.150 ,000 /-, whereas an amount of Rs.400,000/- was not given to him against the total settlement of Rs.650,000/- but it was paid after taking notice by this Court. The bail of Rana Imran already granted to him in the said murder case in pursuance whereof he was allowed to be released on personal surety bond was cancelled, as against him ( Rana Imran ) and another, the complainant alleged that he was pressurized to enter into the compromise.
4. It appears that a case under Section 214, PPC was also registered against four persons namely Ghulam Sarwar , Zafar Iqbal , Waheed Ahmed and Khawaja Islam. Statedly , on 06.12.2011, Ghulam Sarwar and Zafar Iqbal have been arrested, whereas the remaining accused persons namely Khawaja Islam and Waheed Ahmed have obtained bail from the High Court on 12.12.2011. When we have inquired from the learned Additional Advocate General as to why the remaining two persons have not been arrested, he stated that steps are being taken to do the needful. We have noticed that as far as Ghulam Sarwar and Zafar Iqbal are concerned, after their arrest, under Section 214, PPC they were entitled to be released on bail, which is bailable and non-compoundable offence. We prima facie are of the opinion that in view of the facts and circumstances, it seems to be a case of coercion, harassment and compulsion because after making the payment of Rs.250 ,000 /- a cheque amounting to Rs.400,000/- was given to the complainant from the account of one Muhammad Ahmed for the purpose of entering into compromise and meanwhile the matter came before this Court, therefore, the remaining payment of Rs.400,000/- was made to the complainant.
5. Be that as it may, it is for the investigating agency to conduct the case properly with full determination and commitment instead of unnecessarily allowing concession to the persons, if they are involved in the commission of offence. However, as far as Ghulam Sarwar and Zafar Iqbal are concerned, if they furnish surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10 ,000 /- each they should be released on bail forthwith.
6. Now turning towards the proposition of amount of DIYAT, it is to be noted that under Section 323 of PPC, the object and purpose of recovery of DIYAT amount is that the victim should be compensated according to the rate which is prevailing at the time when the compromise is effected . The learned Attorney General for Pakistan as well as the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab , both have agreed that the date of compromise could be relevant for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation and not the date, when the offence was committed. In this behalf, reference is made to Abdul Ghafoor v. State (1992 SCMR 1218), Ali Sher v. State (1992 P.Cr.LJ 1583), Safdar Ali v. State (PLD 1991 Supreme Court 202), Niaz v. State (2009 P.Cr.J 1479). However, there is a judgment of Federal Shariat Court reported as Ali Dost v. State (2006 P.Cr.LJ 80) wherein fixation of amount of DIYAT and payment of amount of DIYAT in installments was allowed, but we are of the view that while delivering the judgment by the Federal Shariat Court, the judgments noted hereinabove, were not considered. The minimum rate of the compensation of DIYAT amount is to be fixed by the Court, according to the notification, issued by the Federal Government, on every financial year, therefore, we are not inclined to agree with the opinion expressed in the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court . However, following the law laid down by this Court, referred to hereinabove, we declare that as far as the amount of DIYAT is concerned, the same shall be determined according to the prevailing rate of DIYAT at the time when the compromise is effected, because it is the accused who actually requests the victim party to favour him and if, as a result, such favour is extended then according to the law, the payment of compensation should be determined and made at the rate prevailing at the time when the compromise is effected and executed by the Court.
7. Now turning to the other question regarding moveable and immovable properties. In this behalf, it is to be noted that according to explanation to Section 310, PPC the word property includes both the moveable and immoveable property, therefore, compensation equal to NISAB prevailing at the time when the compromise is effected after determining the value of the moveable and immoveable property can also be paid.
8. It is informed by the office that against the Judicial Officer, who had released the accused namely Rana Imran on his personal surety in a very casual manner, about whom the matter was referred to the learned Chief Justice, Lahore High Court, Lahore, disciplinary proceedings have already commenced.
9. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the matter stands disposed of with direction to the Court before whom the case is pending to dispose of the same expeditiously, as early as possible, but not later than a period of three months. Disposed of. (R.A.) Case disposed of