The Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed that 'honour killings', branded as karo-kari, are cancerous and tumorous to society, humanity, and the populace.
"It is really a sorry state of affairs, rather deeply appalling and deplorable, in a typical segment of society where a conviction persists that when a woman is regarded as "kari", the family members must consider it their vested right to kill her and the co-accused "karo" in order to refurbish and recondition the family honour," the top court observed.
The top court has further observed that predominantly, honour killing is often an emblem of adultery, but it is exploited in multifarious means of seeming unscrupulous conduct.
"However, the research-based statistics demonstrate that the majority of victims of such inhuman and ruthless acts are women who are killed and the assailants or aggressors are no one else but the male members of the family or community," noted the top court.
The top court gave these observations while rejecting the bail application of individuals who were accused of killing female family members in the name of honour after she chose to marry a person of her choice.
"Without a doubt, the father and other family members might be annoyed or exasperated on knowing about a marriage of choice, but it no way allows them to take the law in their hands for evil designs," the top court observed.
"Such alleged depraved manners and postures can include marital betrayal, refusal to acquiesce to an arranged marriage, wanting marriage or divorce, perceived flirtatious demeanour, or even rape," it added.
A three-judge bench headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and comprising Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan heard the bail applications of murder accused. The accused challenged a judgement issued by the Sindh High Court (SHC) dismissing their bail applications. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar authored the detailed judgement and listed the legal reasons for refusing the bail of the accused.
The judgement said that the motive behind honour killing is the self-proclaimed conclusion that honour killing is indispensable to cleanse dishonour or humiliation.
"This genre of gender-based violence is not only self-destructive to the humanity and social order, but it is regarded as "fasad-fil-arz", which is not only against the norms of civilised culture in the society, but is also a violation of fundamental rights enshrined under the Constitution, and most importantly, it is also a serious defilement and disrespect to the teachings and injunctions of Islam," the top court observed.
The judgment has further observed that neither the law of the land nor religion permits so-called honour killing which amounts to murder simpliciter.
"Such iniquitous and vile act is violative of Article 9 of the Constitution which provides that no person would be deprived of life or liberty except in accordance with law and any custom or usage in that respect is void under Article 8(1) of the Constitution."
The judgment stated that it is a renowned articulation of law that the concession of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief which can be granted in extraordinary situations to protect the liberty of innocent persons.
It added that the petitioner must satisfy the court regarding the basic conditions enumerated under Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code with reference to reasonable grounds, which necessitates and entails further inquiry in the case.
"No specific details of mala fide intention are shown. In fact, no plausible reasons are shown as to why the FIR was not lodged by the parents and other family members; instead, they pleaded that the delay in lodging an FIR lies with the complainant."
The top court has held that a major Muslim woman, like a major Muslim man, who is sui juris (capacity to manage one's own affairs), is entitled to the same rights and liberties. This concept is further supported by Article 9 of the Constitution, which guarantees that no person can be deprived of life or liberty except in accordance with law.
The top court said that, seemingly, the complainant raised the allegation of murder of his wife on account of honour killing by the accused persons nominated in the case, which will, of course, be subject to proof in the trial court. According to the complainant, the murder was committed at the instigation of the father of the deceased, being a 'mastermind'.
"The expression "mastermind" insinuates a persona other than the arrested assassins who is responsible for planning and organising the crime and plays a major role in the murder or some alternate crime, either by ordering the crime or by helping the arrested killers who committed or perpetrated the crime."
The case
According to the FIR, Mansoor Ali lodged a complaint stating that on September 20, 2021, he married a 26-year-old woman, the daughter of Muhammad Ali Mahar. However, the woman's relatives did not accept their marriage.
Since a formal Rukhsati ceremony (a cultural ceremony) did not occur, the couple only maintained contact with the woman's family through telephone.
Mansoor further alleged that his wife used to tell him that she feared for her life from her relatives.
It was further alleged that on May 15, 2023, the husband was in telephonic contact with his wife but on May 16, 2023, he came to know from her friend that on May 15, 2023, at about 3pm, the deceased's parents shot her in the head with a pistol, murdering her, but have attempted to dress the incident as suicide. The complainant also learnt from her friend that at the instigation of the accused, Muhammad Ali Mahar, on the phone, the accused, Mohsin Ali Mahar, had fired upon the deceased and proceeded to conceal the facts. However, on September 24, 2023, the complainant also recorded his supplementary statement in which he stated he received information that the accused, Ahsan Mahar, had been directed by his father, Muhammad Ali Mahar, along with his brother, Mohsin Ali Mahar, to use a licensed pistol belonging to their uncle, to carry out the deed. He further stated that Ahsan Ali and Mohsin Ali killed their sister while other nominated accused were also involved in the planning and execution of the crime.
The prosecution, while supporting the judgment of SHC, argued that both accused persons are involved in and have played a vital role in the commission of a heinous crime because they were displeased with the deceased's marriage to the complainant.
They further contended that the petitioners failed to allege any mala fide intention. They were charged with offences that fall within the prohibitory clause; hence, they are not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
The counsel for the complainant argued that the family of the deceased woman was quite perturbed and annoyed due to her free-will marriage, and for this reason, she was murdered on the pretext of honour, which was portrayed as suicide.
It was further argued that the accused did not lodge an FIR for the death of the deceased even if they considered it was a case of suicide given that suicide is criminalised under Pakistani law.
It was further contended that the deceased was killed in the house of the accused with a firearm and, under the false cover of suicide, they also attempted to destroy evidence by deleting messages from her phone which the forensic department later recovered.
He further argued that the duly wedded couple had a very cordial relationship, which is apparent from the retrieved messages, hence there was no compelling reason for the deceased to commit suicide.