Muhammad Ali Meher and another v. The State

Muhammad Ali Meher and another v. The State

SCMR 1584 (SC), Criminal Petition No 201-K of 2023, 11 June 2024.

Court:

Supreme Court of Pakistan

Judges on the Bench:

Muhammad Ali Mazhar

Syed Hussain Azhar Rizvi

Irfan Saadat Khan

Parties:

Petitioner: Muhammad Ali Mehar

Respondent: State

Facts of the case:

Ms. Noreen was found dead in her maternal home. Her husband, the claimant, accused her brothers Ahsan Ali Meher and Mohsin Ali Meher of taking her life in the name of honor as they were unhappy about her marriage to claimant. He alleged that the fatal shot was fired using a licensed pistol owned by their uncle, and that the act was carried out on the instructions of their father, Muhammad Ali Meher. Following Noreen’s death, her family did not report the incident to the police. The claimant went to the authorities and lodged the FIR. He found their silence suspicious because it did not have reasonable explanation.

The family, however, told a different story. They said that Noreen had taken her own life due to problems in her marriage. However medical examination found no blackening around the gunshot wound which is something usually present in self-inflicted and close-range shootings. This raised doubts about the family’s suicide theory. Digital forensics also revealed that someone had attempted to delete the text conversations between Noreen and her husband. Once recovered, those messages indicated an affectionate relationship. Despite making serious allegations, the family couldn’t offer any credible proof to show that the husband had acted out of personal bias or hidden motives. Looking at the available facts, the picture that emerged was not of a troubled marriage but that of a tragic honor killing.

Argument Summary:

Petitioner (Muhammad Ali Mehar):

The petitioners argued they had already lost their daughter and were being falsely accused by the claimant, who was making the allegations to extort money from the accused. It was argued that no evidence was presented to prove honor killing or the petitioners’ presence at the time of death. It was further alleged that Ms. Noreen committed suicide due to blackmail by the claimant, and the claimant was accused of having malicious intentions. The petitioners emphasized their respectable social standing and requested a separate inquiry to investigate the claimant’s motives.

Respondent (State):

Prosecutor General Sindh, Dr. Faiz Shah, argued that both the accused played vital roles in the commission of the crime due to their displeasure upon the marriage of the deceased with the claimant. The council alleged that murder was committed by the accused parties in the disguise of suicide. In his supplementary statement, respondent stated that he received information according to which accused Ahsan Ali Meher, along with his brother Mohsin Ali Meher, after being directed by their father Muhammad Ali Meher, used a licensed pistol belonging to their uncle. It was further contended that no mala fide intent on the part of the claimant was proved and that the offence committed falls under the prohibitory clause of S. 497 of CrPC, as a result of which the accused were not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.

Legal issue/ Question of law:

Whether the accused are entitled to pre-arrest bail or not?

Decision with reasoning:

The Petition of the accused was dismissed, and leave was refused. Consequently ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner was recalled. According to the court, the deceased was of the age of “sui juris,” which refers to a person who can make their own decisions and possess full social and civil rights. Muslim women, like Muslim men, are sui juris, meaning that they are entitled to the same freedoms and liberties. This includes the right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Under this article, no one can be deprived of life or liberty except in accordance with the law. It was described that the basic conditions which provide reasonable grounds for consideration of bail, as codified in Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure, were not satisfied by the accused. The court referred to the case of Rana Abdul Khaliq V state, in which it was held that granting pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy in criminal jurisdiction, so the person demanding such bail should reasonably demonstrate that an intended arrest would humiliate them, and if they fail to do so bail would not be granted. Since a reasonable demonstration was not provided by the accused, his bail was rejected.

The court also cited the case of Muhammad Ashraf V Muhammad Shafique in which it was stressed that relief will only be provided if the accused was being victimized through abuse of law or was being dishonored due to the involvement of malicious intent on the part of the claimant. Since no abuse of law was evident and no malice on the part of the claimant was proved, the grounds for relief are not available in this case. It was also pointed out that to be guilty of certain criminal acts, common intention or meeting of minds is required. The criminal conduct doesn’t need to be done by one’s hand to be guilty of it. This corresponds with the current case, where although the pistol was shot by one of the accused’s brothers but his meeting of mind could be seen with his father and brother, thus showing that all of them mutually intended to shoot Noreen.

The court went one step ahead by referring to an article “Journal of positive school psychology,” which discusses how honor killings instill fear in women to make them blindly follow the traditions set by patriarchs of the family. Another article “Pakistan’s manly tradition of settling scores of shames via blood of women” was also referred to, which demonstrates how murders to restore honor promote a culture that is deeply conservative and leads to fatalities without the fear of retribution. Consequently, such cultures promote lawlessness in society. The court used these articles to provide a broader vision of honor crimes to address their severity.

Ratio Decendi:

The Supreme Court affirmed that pre arrest bail is an extra ordinary relief and can only be granted where abuse of power or mala fide intent can be clearly established. In offences falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 CrPC, bail cannot be granted unless statutory grounds are satisfied. It was also asserted that circumstantial, forensic or digital evidence indicating common intention and honor-based motive will be sufficient at bail stage to refuse pre arrest bail.

Implications:

The judgment exemplifies a positive and progressive approach against honor-based violence, upholding the constitutional and legal rights of women in Pakistan. In holding that Muslim women are sui juris and are entitled to equal liberty and protection under Article 9 of the Constitution, the Court solidified the idea that personal autonomy, especially on marriage, cannot be circumvented by patriarchal norms. The Court’s dependency on digital, forensic, and circumstantial evidence, such as the lack of blackening at the site of injury, erased messages indicating a loving relationship, and non-filing of an FIR by the victim’s family, thoroughly supported the prosecution’s account of honor killing. Additionally, by looking at sociological texts on the harms of honor crimes, the Court expanded the interpretive horizon of criminal law to bring out the structural violence caused by such cultural practice.

Although the ruling strictly refused pre-arrest bail on the grounds of absence of mala fide intention on the part of the complainant and lack of sufficient grounds under Section 497 CrPC, its dependence on supplementary statements and sociocultural observations is problematic and raises questions about evidentiary standards in pre-trial stages. Pre-arrest bail, though an exception, is a safeguard against potential abuse of state power. Although no ill will was established in this instance, the Court’s reasoning rested significantly on inferring “meeting of minds” and social context over concrete evidence of the accused’s physical participation. However, the ruling is a milestone confirmation of women’s rights and determination of the judiciary to tackle honor-based violence in Pakistan.

Conclusion:

The court reaffirmed that Muslim women are sui juris and are entitled to full constitutional protections. Denial of prearrest bail to an accused of honor crime demonstrated strong judicial stance against honor killing and underscored accountability despite familial and societal pressures.