No pardon for rape

 

Comprehension:  

A recent decree of a session court in Karachi served the true cause of justice when a man accused of sexual assault of a school teacher was convicted to ten years behind the bars under section 345 of the CrPC. This certain section of the Criminal Procedure Code explicitly states “No offense shall be compounded except as provided by this section.” Nevertheless, there are examples of numerous appalling errors of judgment of courts where sexual offenders are released based on out-of-court settlements with the victims or their families. A recent example is the decision set aside by the Peshawar High Court when the culprit was released because he married the very victim he had sexually assaulted. Furthermore, relaxation in non-compoundable offenses either at the discretion of the court or upon some out-of-court settlement violates the principles of true justice. An example of this discretion is the release of honor killers who are pardoned for grotesque murders because they are pardoned by kin or family guardians. Recent amendments to the law of ‘honor killing’ has changed nothing, except that the discretionary powers of the court are enhanced to either punish or release an accused if pardoned by the family. The law of honor killing definitely needs a revision, with that those who get the benefit of the doubt in willful murders by browbeating the victims’ families into a compromise must not be allowed to get away with the punishment.

Personal Opinion:

Rape is a heinous crime, and letting off the perpetrators walk free must be considered even more heinous. The rising ratio of rape crimes is evidence of the loopholes in our criminal justice system. The recent incident in the F-9 Park in Islamabad cannot get more gruesome. With that, the most populous city of Pakistan, Karachi, has witnessed five reported rapes or sexual assaults in the last five days. This must be enough to explain the faultlines in our social fabric on one side and the fragility of our legal system on the other. Perpetrators walking free and shrugging their shoulders after committing such heinous crimes is a slap on the face of our criminal justice system. It cannot get more frustrating and bothering to witness in person multiple instances where rapists and murderers take benefit of the loopholes in the criminal justice system and walk free to commit the next crime even more confidently.

Original Editorial (Published in Dawn 07-02-2023)

AN important aspect of procedural law pertaining to the crime of rape, and one that most certainly serves the cause of justice, was recently reiterated in a sessions court in Karachi.

In a case where a school teacher was sexually assaulted in Karachi in March 2017, the court found the accused guilty and rejected a compromise between him and the victim’s father as a basis of acquittal.

Holding that an out-of-court settlement has no legal value in rape cases, the judge sentenced the defendant to 10 years behind bars. Her approach adhered to the law: the crime of rape is not included among the compoundable offences listed under Section 345 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which expressly says “No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section”.

Nevertheless, courts still make appalling errors of judgement. In 2012, a trial court acquitted men accused of gang rape after they came to an out-of-court settlement with the father of the victim.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court struck down the lower court’s ruling. But similar travesties of justice continue to take place. For example, in December 2022, the Peshawar High Court set aside the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to a man for sexual assault because he married the victim as a result of a compromise.

Cultural filters and biases can often lead to faulty applications of the law. In a deeply inequitable society, the compounding of offences can lead to outcomes completely at odds with the principles of justice.

This is perhaps most starkly seen in cases of ‘honour killing’ where, unlike other types of murder, the families of the victims and the perpetrators are the same. This has allowed murderers to go free when the victims’ next of kin have ‘pardoned’ them — a grotesque iteration of ‘keeping it in the family’.

After the public outrage at the murder of social media celebrity Qandeel Baloch at the hands of her brother, legislators brought an amendment to the relevant law. Fundamentally, this amendment changed nothing. Honour killing remains compoundable; the court continues, as before, to have discretionary power to award punishment to perpetrators even if they are pardoned by the family of the victim.

Only the minimum punishment that may be awarded has been enhanced — from 10 years’ imprisonment to imprisonment for life.

The acquittal of Qandeel’s brother on appeal by the Lahore High Court is further evidence that the law needs revision, but it also offers an insight into society’s misogynistic bent.

However, in most cases of murder, even willful murder, the deciding factor in whether justice is done is the social standing of the victim’s family. If they can be browbeaten into a ‘compromise’, then killers walk free. Surely those who commit this most terrible of crimes should not get away with it.