ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court on Friday said trial and high courts must examine genuineness of compromises in heinous crimes and should not accept them with closed eyes.

The chief justice held that the courts must enforce Islamic Injunctions with full force. Recently, in the Shahzeb murder case, the parents of the boy killed in Karachi last year filed an application in a court, pardoning the murderers despite the fact that an anti-terrorism court had awarded death sentence to main accused Shahrukh Jatoi and Siraj Talpur and life term to Sajjad Talpur and Ghulam Murtaza Lashari on June 7.

The court directed the attorney general of Pakistan, the advocate generals of all the provinces and senior advocate Shahid Hamid, appointed amicus curea (friend of court), to give their propositions so that it could announce an authoritative judgment in the acceptance of compromises in heinous crimes.

A three-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, was hearing a case of compromise reached between the two parties in the murder case that occurred in district Phalia in 2004.

The court said that trial and high courts were duty-bound to examine the genuineness of compromises in murder cases otherwise it would allow the parties to compound the offence without adhering to Islamic Injunctions, particularly Section 311 of Pakistan Penal Code. The provision should not be exercised without seriously adopting true interpretation of Islamic Injunctions, he held.

In 2004, the Phalia district and sessions judge found Muhammad Azam and Jehangir guilty in the Muhammad Arif murder case. The Lahore High Court reduced the death sentence to life imprisonment.

During the pendency of the case, Azam entered into a compromise with the legal heirs of Muhammad Arif (his two widows and children), giving two kanals of land to them. However, other heirs, Tanvir Fatima, Ghulam Dastagir and Ghulam Arifeen, did not forgive the killers. The case was filed in the Supreme Court which on September 6, 2013, granted leave to appeal and heard the case Friday. During the proceedings, the chief justice asked counsel for the respondent why this compromise should not be rejected.

Shahid Hamid opined that the way the compromise law was being used in the country was against the spirit of Diyat. “It has led to degradation and abuse of law,” he said, adding during the last five years moratorium of death sentence, perhaps, under the pressure of European Union and the West, had affected the society negatively.

Justice Jawwad said in Oklahoma, a US state, five persons were awarded death through lethal injections in one year. He added in the jurisdiction of Multan Bench almost all the heinous crimes were compromised from 1978 to 2006, adding such compromises had led to vendetta.

Shahid Hamid said that even if there was forgiveness, a murderer should be sent to jail for 15 years. The chief justice said the courts should not accept compromises in a mechanical manner. Justice Jawwad said that in most of the murder cases, influential people forced the other party to enter into compromises. The case was adjourned till September 23.

SC SEEKS 5 ARMY, AGENCIES MEN'S AFFIDAVITS: The Supreme Court Friday through Defence Ministry sought the affidavits of five army and intelligence agencies officers, who allegedly have knowledge about Masood Janjua's enforced disappearance.

Amna Masood on Thursday filed a list of army and intelligence agencies officers, including Col Jehangir Akhtar, Col Habibullah, Brig Mansoor Saeed Shiekh, Lt Gen Nusrat Naeem, Lt Gen Shafqaat Ahmad and Lt Gen Nadeem Taj, so they may be cross examined in enforced disappearance of her husband, Masood Janjua, has been missing since July 2005.

Amina has also included the name of former AGP Malik Abdul Qayyum for cross-examining in her husband's case.

A three-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, hearing missing persons cases said on receiving the affidavits they would decide about the forum for cross examination of military officers related to the alleged enforced disappearance of Amna's husband. The bench also directed the former AGP Malik Qayyum to file affidavit in this matter as well.

It is to be noted here that in response to the Supreme Court's September 11 order, Defence of Human Rights Chairperson Amina Masood Janjua submitted a list of military and intelligence persons to be cross examined, in disappearance of Masood Janjua, who has been missing since July 30, 2005.

She requested the SC to prosecute the "culprits who had tried to cheat the court by producing a fake affidavit" and also accept the statement of Dr Imran Munir given to the joint investigation team once and for all.

Meanwhile, the same bench has also sought reply from Rawalpindi police within three days on the application of a lawyer Inam ur Rahim, who was allegedly attacked by 6 to 7 officers of military intelligence and was badly injured on November 14, 2012.

According to the applicant, he immediately lodged a complaint against the miscreants in the police station R.A. Bazar Rawalpindi but till date, the police did not register FIR. He requested the SC to direct CPO Rawalpindi to register FIR as per the complaints lodged by the applicant.

Hearing the case of missing person, the court sought a comprehensive report regarding the effectiveness of special cell, which is working in Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) office to intensify the court's efforts regarding the recovery of missing persons as well as arranging meetings of detained people with their loved ones.

Hearing the petition, filed by Abida Malik regarding the recovery of her husband Taseef Ali, the court has expressed dissatisfaction over the police performance and declared that senior officer not below the rank of DIG should investigate the matter and submit report on September 23.

The bench also expressed annoyance over the police for sharing the very sensitive nature of information in open court.

During the hearing, the bench also asked the counsel for MI that why was he dragging the whole institution in this matter as the police could take action against the army officials in civil nature of cases. The chief justice observed that army officials were also governed by the constitution.