Supreme Court (SC) has sought the stance of advocate general Punjab on matter of Dayat (compensation) to the heirs of killed people.
A two-member bench of SC comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad
Chaudhry and Justice Khilji Arif Hussain heard the suo moto notice taken
on giving less compensation amount of 6,50000 rupees instead of 3200000
to the hears of 12 years old child Bilal who was killed in a marriage
ceremony in Faisalabad.
Meanwhile, apex court directed the Chief Secretary and Inspector
General of Police (IGP) Punjab to initiate proceedings against the City
Police Officer (CPO) of Sialkot Rai Tahir for his noted negligence in
the murder case of a young boy.
The court also has sent the case to Chief Justice of Lahore High
Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (ASJ) Aqil Hussain
Chohan who had granted bail to an accused Rana Imran.
During the course of hearing, the bench expressed its displeasure
with the working of police force and said that they were only securing
their jobs.
Meanwhile, the Attorney General for Pakistan Maulvi Amwar-ul-Haq said
that federal government decides Dayat cost every year and this year the
dayat cost has been decided about 32 Lac pak rupees, adding that in the
situation of compromise the cost would be decided by the both parties.
CJ said that it would unjustified the influenced people would force
to the poor heirs to accept less money, adding that it is the beauty of
Islam that has kept the deterrence.
The chief justice remarked that the MPA had opened up his own court.
Why he was not questioned by the police, CJ added whether court has to lead police on every point by holding fingers like kids.
Why he was not questioned by the police, CJ added whether court has to lead police on every point by holding fingers like kids.
He asked the CPO to explain what steps he had taken against the MPA for interfering in the case.
When the CPO could not satisfy, the CJ asked him to submit his
statement with admission that he had failed to perform his duties.
The bench questioned as to why Diyat amount was not paid to the bereaved family.
Further hearing was adjourned till November 16.
According to a report submitted by the CPO before the bench, a case
was registered on the complaint of Shahid Ali against Rana Imran, Qamar
uz Zaman, Rafique, Adnan Aslam and Javed for their alleged role in
murdering his son Muhammad Bilal.
On September 4, the complainant father (electrician by profession)
along with his son, Zahid Ali (brother) and Muhammad Shehzad (nephew)
were engaged for electrification of the marriage function of Adnan
Aslam.
When the accused were resorted to aerial firing, the complainant
tried to restrain them but they became enraged and fired at his son who
succumbed to his injuries.
The report said that during the course of investigation all codal
formalities were fulfilled but the complainant during investigation
tendered his statement in favour of accused Qamar uz Zaman, Rafique,
Adnan Aslam and Javed except Ranan Imran.
The accused were held innocent on the basis of his statement as well
as circumstantial evidence whereas, the accused Imran managed his
pre-arrest bail from the competent court of law.
On September 26, the complainant along with his wife appeared before
the Additional District and Sessions Judge (ASJ) and stated that being
legal heirs of deceased Bilal, they had compounded the offence, forgiven
the accused in the name of Allah Almighty while waving their right of
Qisas and Diyat. So the bail of Imran was confirmed.
On the intervention of notables, both parties went to Khawaja Islam,
MPA, for resolving the dispute, where they agreed for a compromise in
lieu of Rs 650,000 which were to be handed over to the complainant party
from the accused side.
Subsequently, Rs 100,000 and Rs 150,000 were handed over but after a
statement by the complainant, the ASJ confirmed ad-interim pre-arrest
bail to Imran.
But when the ASJ received order of the apex Court on October 25, he
summoned the complainant and Rana Imran and after hearing reached to the
conclusion that the ad-interim bail of accused was in fact the outcome
of pressure exerted over the complainant to enter into compromise.
The ASJ recalled the bail granting order and cancelled the pre-arrest bail.
The report says that investigation officer arrested the accused,
produced him before the area Magistrate and sent him to judicial lock-up
as a challan against him had already been submitted in the trial court
on October 7. SANA