Pages

Saturday, November 5, 2011

SC summons AGP stance over Dayat

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.
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