PHC upholds life term in Nowshera honour killing case

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) has upheld the life imprisonment awarded to a man convicted of killing his wife in Nowshera in what the prosecution described as an honour-related murder.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Sahibzada Asadullah and Justice Inamullah Khan dismissed the appeal filed by convict Jehanzeb, holding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court was examining a challenge to a trial court ruling delivered by an additional sessions judge on April 14, 2025, which sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and ordered him to pay Rs800,000 in compensation to the deceased woman’s legal heirs.

According to the detailed 29-page judgement, the first information report was registered at Nowshera Kalan police station on Dec 25, 2021, after the appellant himself approached police. In that report, he stated that he worked as a painter in Rawalpindi and had developed suspicions about his wife’s character. He further claimed that when he entered his house at the time of the incident, an unidentified person fled the scene, after which he shot his wife dead with a pistol in the name of honour.

The judgement said the case record showed that after the killing, the woman’s body was placed in a blue drum kept in the washroom, while the pistol was thrown near the drum. The court noted that the body remained concealed for around 20 to 24 hours and that the appellant reported the matter to police the following day. It added that he later withdrew from the statement he had initially made.

In its observations, the bench said the nature of the crime had deeply disturbed the public. “The brutality of the incident is not reflected merely from the fact that the deceased was done to death, but more significantly from the manner in which, after her killing, her dead body was concealed in a drum and remained there for approximately 20 to 24 hours,” said the bench.

The court further noted: “It was only on the following day that the appellant approached police station, lodged report, admitted his involvement and thereby set the criminal law into motion,” the bench pointed out.

The judgement also recorded that the deceased woman’s father had initially nominated the appellant, but later tried to give him concession because of family arrangements and domestic considerations.

Court rejects plea based on children

The appellant had argued that he had minor children and that his conviction would leave them without parental care and protection. The bench rejected that plea, ruling that such considerations could not override criminal liability once guilt had been established through evidence.

“The law cannot be rendered subservient to considerations of sympathy which arise only after the commission of a crime. Courts are guardians of justice, not dispensers of misplaced compassion,” the bench observed.

The court said the welfare of children was a matter of concern and deserved protection from family and society, but that this could not diminish the rights of the victim or reduce the offender’s accountability. “To hold otherwise would create an impermissible precedent whereby the existence of dependents becomes a shield against criminal responsibility,” the bench ruled.

It added that extending the benefit of acquittal on the basis that the accused had minor children would amount to a failure of judicial duty where culpability had otherwise been established. “Justice must remain even-handed; otherwise, sympathy for the offender would come at the cost of justice for the victim,” the court observed.

FIR and confession issue examined

The PHC also addressed a legal question concerning the evidentiary status of an FIR filed by a person who later becomes an accused. The bench examined whether the entire contents of such an FIR become inadmissible, or whether parts that do not amount to a confession may still carry evidentiary relevance.

According to the judgement, the appellant’s statement admitting that he had caused the death of the deceased was, in substance, a confession made before a police officer and therefore had no evidentiary value against him except to the limited extent allowed by law.

“Such a statement is nothing but an extra-judicial confession addressed to police and, by the virtue of well-settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, carries no evidentiary value against the maker except to the limited extent recognised by law. Consequently, the confessional portion of the FIR cannot be relied upon as substantive evidence of guilt,” the bench ruled.

Discussing previous rulings of superior courts, the bench said the law did not allow such a statement to be treated as proof of guilt solely because it had been incorporated into a first information report.