MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs The STATE and 4 others
This revision petition was filed against the judgment and order of the trial court which dismissed the petitioner's implementation petition seeking payment of Diyat amount from the State following the murder of Imran Hussain in FIR No. 223/2010. The core legal question was whether the State is liable to pay Diyat or compensation in a criminal case where an accused was tried and acquitted, rather than the case remaining untraced due to state failure. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that state liability to pay compensation or Diyat extends to cases of terrorism, sectarian killings, and untraced crimes due to negligence or failure to maintain law and order, but does not apply to a decided case where an accused underwent trial and was acquitted. The court laid down the principle that compensation policies of the government for terrorism and violence do not obligate the State to pay Diyat in fully prosecuted and adjudicated criminal trials resulting in acquittal.
- Whether the State is liable to pay Diyat in a criminal case where the accused stood trial and was acquitted?
- Does the policy of the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan regarding compensation for terrorism victims apply to cases that are not untraced?
- Can an implementation petition for Diyat succeed when the trial court's judgment of acquittal attained finality up to the apex court?
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment/order passed by the learned trial Court on 28.06.2018.
2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the revision petition are that on 24-08-2010, some unknown persons short dead Imran Hussain by opening fire shot on him. First Information Report No, 223/2010 was lodged by the complainant in Police Station City Gilgit. The learned trial Court on conclusion of trial acquitted the accused Shamas-ur-Rehman but ordered payment of Diyat amount to the victim by the State vide judgment/ order dated 07.01.2012. The order of learned trial Court was upheld by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble apex Court.
3. The implementation petition filed by the petitioner has been turned down by the learned trial Court on the ground that in compliance of the order of the learned trial Court in TC Nos, 31/2010 and 32/2010, the Provincial Government of Gilgit-Baltistan has paid Rs, 300000/- (Three lac) as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Imran Hussain as mentioned in letter No, SOH-i(23)/ compensation/ 2010 (F&A) dated 30.10.2015 issued by the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Home and Prison Department Secretariat Gilgit.
4. We have also gone through the judgment of Hon'ble apex Court passed in Cr. PLA No, 04/201 1, the relevant para of judgment has also been highlighted in the impugned judgment but for the purpose of convenience the same is reproduced again:-- "C. The State Government is liable to pay compensation to the legal heirs of victims of terrorism or of sectarian killing and in all other Criminal cases which remained untraced either because of negligence of State functionaries or otherwise or as a result of failure of State to maintain law and order situation for protection of its citizens."
5. It has rightly been held by the learned trial Court, that the Hon'ble apex Court have held that in all the cases of terrorism and sectarian killing the Govern ment will be responsible to pay Diyat to the legal heirs of the deceased but in the cases which remained untraced.
6. The instant case was not among the untraced cases. One Shams-ur-Rehman stood trial before the learned trial Court and was acquitted, which judgment/order was maintained up to the apex Court. It has been brought into our knowledge by the learned Dy. Advocate General that a uniform policy was introduced by the Government of Gilgit- Baltistan and a sum of Rs, 300000/-(Three lac) each was paid to the legal heirs of all the families, whose nears and dears lost their lives in the violence of terrorism and also in sectarian killing.
7. We are of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order which is upheld and revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.