Honour Killing: Understanding The Legal Background

Understanding the legal background (I should say backwardness) of the hateful act like honour killing.

“An honour killing is a murder of a woman accused of or actually involved with a man in act like infidelity, flirting or other instances perceived as, or one whose behavior is perceived as immoral. This happens when one or more male relatives suspect or note that the woman is a blot on the face of the family for her perceived illegal sexual activity.”

The above given definition may not be as exhaustive as it should be but it covers most of the heinous crime. One may curse the stupidity of law but painful presence of heinous crime like honour killing, make any reasonable person shudder with hate and more hate.

". Section 300(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) read: "Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation. This provision was omitted when the Qisas and Diyat law was introduced in 1990 but judicial practice still allows such mitigating circumstances.

The 1990 law of Qisas and Diyat covers offences relating to physical injury, manslaughter and murder. The law reconceptualized the offences in such a way that they are not directed against the legal order of the state but against the victim. A judge in the Supreme Court explained: "In Islam, the individual victim or his heirs retain from the beginning to the end entire control over the matter including the crime and the criminal. They may not report it; they may not prosecute the offender. They may abandon prosecution of their free will. They may pardon the criminal at any stage before the execution of the sentence. They may accept monetary or other compensation to purge the crime and the criminal. They may compromise. They may accept qisas [punishment equal to the offence] from the criminal. The state cannot impede but must do its best to assist them in achieving their object and in appropriately exercising their rights." [9].


The law of Qisas and Diyat prescribes that the death penalty may not be imposed for murder as either qisas [punishment equal to the offence committed] or tazir [discretionary punishment, when the evidence is insufficient to impose qisas] when the wali [heir] of the victim is a direct descendant of the offender. In such cases the court may only impose a maximum of 14 years’ imprisonment. Thus, if a man murders his wife with whom he has a child, who then is the victim’s heir and the descendent of the offender, he can at most be sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment.

The 1979 Zina law has also contributed to restricting women’s rights. The gender discrimination inherent in it sent an affirmative signal to those intent on treating women as second class human beings with fewer rights than men. It has also provided a handy tool with which to detain women who take any initiative with respect to their choice of a spouse, as fathers often bring zina charges against such women.


All above-mentioned three laws i.e. Section 300(1) of Pakistan Penal Code, Hadood Ordinance and Zina Ordinance coupled with backwardness of the society, has resulted in death of thousand of women. Although Section 300(1) of Pakistan Penal Code has been repealed but as a precedent it is still being cited in lower courts and judges at lower judiciary, not being as competent as they should be, are convicting as well as releasing and bailing the persons involved.

Hadood Ordinance has provided this ill-practice, a legal cover. Now, the male members sit together, chalk out the plan and kill the women without the fear of any legal consequence. In my neighborhood, a school teacher was killed by her brother in connivance with her husband who pardoned the killer as being “wali” of the deceased. The more shameful is that this act was committed after obtaining consultation from an advocate of the locality, who guided them the safe way out. Some will say that there is no fault with the Hadood Law the fault lies with the person who turn the noose of the law in his favour. My opinion is that this law has too many loopholes i.e. it provide luxury to wealthy to kill unwanted and then pay the price of dead body and enjoy the life as usual.

As for as Zana Ordinance is concerned, the very provision to establish the act of Zana with four eyewitnesses is so glaringly faulty that it needs no other argument to establish its ills. Since 1979, every year hundreds of women are targeted with ulterior motive and Zana Ordinance is abused to satisfy the evil design. The said misuse is so common that Human Right Organisation has appealed to the Government for its instant repeal.

Major Flaw
“The major flaw in this law is the fact that no distinction is made between adultery and rape. Rape is considered no more heinous a crime than zina. The demarcation line between the two offences is so thin in practice, that when a woman comes into the court with a case of rape, there is a possibility that she might herself be convicted of zina if she cannot prove the rape. The onus of providing proof in a rape case rests with the woman herself. If she is unable to prove her allegation, bringing the case to court is considered equivalent to a confession of sexual intercourse without lawful marriage”

It may be astonishing for some friends that in the case of void marriages, the cohabitation of couples is taken as a "confession" of zina.

Shameful count
During year 2003 around 1,261 cases of honour killings were reported with 938 committed against women and 323 against males. Of a total 1,261 cases of violent crimes related to so-called honour, 94 were reported in January, 82 in February, 120 in March, 92 in April, 148 in May, 135 in June, 86 in July, 170 in August, 107 in September, 106 in October, 53 in November and 68 in December.


These astonishing figures are reflection of the tribal and primitive attitude of the society in which I am forced by nature to be born and bear the pain and pain and pain.