MUHAMMAD IQBAL and anothers vs THE STATE
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against their conviction and sentence under Section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which included five years' rigorous imprisonment along with payment of Diyyat amounting to Rs. 1,75,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased. The core legal question raised was whether a poor convict, unable to pay the Diyyat amount immediately, is required to remain in jail indefinitely or for a long term for non-payment, or whether they are entitled to be released on the condition to earn and pay the same. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the question raised is of general legal importance requiring further consideration, and consequently granted leave to appeal. The principle laid down involves examining the proper execution and incarceration rules relating to the non-payment of Diyyat under Islamic penal jurisprudence as applied through statutory provisions.
- Whether a convict unable to pay Diyyat due to poverty is required to remain in jail for non-payment?
- Is a convict entitled to be released on the condition to earn and pay the Diyyat amount?
- Does the concept of Diyyat under Islamic law contemplate prolonged imprisonment for failure to pay?
- Section 316, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge in Chamber whereby they have been convicted and sentenced under section 316, P.P.C. To five years' R.I. With Diyyat of Rs,1,75,000 to be given to the legal heirs of the deceased.
2. Mr. Taki Ahmed Khan learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are poor people and cannot pay the Diyyat amount nor any of their relations can procure such a huge amount for payment and in consequence thereof they cannot be released till payment is made.
The learned counsel contended that the provisions of law regarding Diyyat as contemplated by Islam do not require a convict to remain in jail for many years/life for nonpayment of Diyyat amount, but he is entitled to be released on condition to earn and pay the same. The question raised is of general legal importance and requires consideration. Leave is granted.