Bridging the Gap
Diyah and the Pursuit of Equitable Victim Compensation in Pakistan
Abstract
This research examines Pakistan’s framework for paying compensation to crime victims, defined in Section 544-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. It brings to light an important flaw (i.e., the lack of an explicit mechanism for the quantification of compensation awards). A review of pertinent legal precedents shows glaring disparities and possible inequities arising from the lack of a standardized mechanism. To fill this gap, we look at the Islamic concept of diyah as a potential basis for an equal and efficient system. Our proposed model brings forth some of the essential features of diyah, such as emphasizing punishment for criminals, facilitating reconciliation and mediation among affected parties, and ensuring robust judicial checks and transparency. We aspire to improve on the inadequacies of the current system through these principles. However, we understand that the feasibility of bringing into operation a framework based on diyah remains uncertain. Challenges involve coping with the complexity of integrating Islamic and secular legal traditions, guaranteeing fairness and preventing discrimination, and attaining common acceptance by the parties. Ultimately, this research contends that incorporating diyah principles into Pakistan’s victim compensation framework offers a promising pathway towards greater fairness, consistency, and social cohesion within the criminal justice system. This, in turn, can enhance access to justice for victims and contribute to a more just and equitable society.
Keywords: diyah; victim compensation; Pakistan
Metadata Record
References 53
- “Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.”
- “The Constitution of Pakistan 1973.”
- Abdul Ali v. Haji Bismillah, 2002 SCMR 203.
- Abdul Qadus v. the State, 1985 SCMR 172.
- Abdur Rehman v. Khurshid Hussain, 1976 SCMR 195.
- Abou El Fadl, Khaled. Speaking in God’s Name: Islamic Law, Authority and Women. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2001.
- Absar, Absar Aftab. “Restorative Justice in Islam with Special Reference to the Concept of Diyya.” Journal of Victimology and Victim 3, no. 1 (2020): 38-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/2516606920927277.
- Ali Nawaz alias Alia v. the State, 1988 SCMR 601.
- Allah Dino v. the State, 1984 SCMR 420.
- Anwaar Hussain v. the State, 2002 SCMR 105.
- Asad, Muhammad, Barkat Ali, and Hafiz Muhammad Usman Nawaz. “Payment of Diyat in Pakistan: Exploring the Missing Islamic Spirit.” Sir Syed Journal of Education & Social Research 3, no. 4 (2020): 418-23. https://doi.org/10.36902/sjesr-vol4-iss1-2021(418-423).
- Ayaz Ahmad v. Allah Wasaya, 2004 SCMR 1808.
- Azmat Ullah v. the State, 2014 SCMR 1178.
- Bahadar Ali v. the State, 2002 SCMR 93.
- Bashir Ahmad v. Muhammad Siddique, 1993 SCMR 1671.
- Chief Executive Officer MEPCO v. Muhammad Ilyas, etc. 2021 SCMR 775.
- Dosa and others v. the State, 2002 SCMR 1578.
- Fareed Bakhsh v. Saeed Ahmad, 1992 SCMR 549.
- Farooq, Salman. “The Retributive Proportionality and Islamic Punishment of Diyyah.” Al-Idah 38, no. 2 (2020): 38-50. https://doi.org/10.37556/al-idah.038.02.667.
- Fateh Khan v. State, 1983 SCMR 519.
- Fyzee, Asaf Ali Asghar. Outlines of Muhammadan Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, n.d.
- Hossain, Mohammad Shahadat, “The Victim Compensation Scheme (‘Aqilah) under Islamic Criminal Law and its Compatibility with the Criminal Justice System in Bangladesh: A Critical Study.” Journal of Creative Writing 5, no. 1 (2021): 62-80. https://doi.org/10.70771/jocw.v5i1.50.
- In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).
- Ismail, Siti Zubaidah. “The Modern Interpretation of the Diyat Formula for the Quantum of Damages: The Case of Homicide and Personal Injuries.” Arab Law Quarterly 26, no. 3 (2012): 361-79. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23235577.
- Jehanzeb v. the State, 2003 SCMR 98.
- Khalid v. the State, 1975 SCMR 500.
- Khan, Muhammad Muhsin, trans. The Translation of the Meanings of Sahȋh al-Bukhȃri. Riyadh: Darussalam Publishers and Distributors, 1997.
- Liebmann, Marian. Restorative Justice: How It Works. London: Jessica Kingsley, 2007.
- Macrotrends. “Historical Silver Prices: 100-Year Chart.” https://www.macrotrends.net/1470/historical-silver-prices-100-year-chart.
- Manzoor and others v. the State, 1992 SCMR 2037.
- Mohammad, Taufik, Razlini Mohd Ramli, and Ben Anderstone. “Situating Restorative Justice in Novel Jurisdictions: Considerations from the Malaysian Experience.” Contemporary Justice Review 24, no. 1 (2021): 85-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2020.1819801.
- Mst. Sakina Bibi v. the Federation of Pakistan, 1992 PLD 99.
- Muhammad Abbas v. the State, 2018 SCMR 397.
- Muhammad Altaf v. the State, 1983 SCMR 900.
- Muhammad Ashraf v. Tahir alias Billoo, 2005 SCMR 383.
- Muhammad Hanif v. Abdur Rehman, 1977 SCMR 471.
- Muhammad Hayat v. Badar Abbas, 2000 SCMR 467.
- Muhammad Shakeel v. the State, 2006 SCMR 1791.
- Muhammad Sharif v. Saddar Din and 2 others, 1972 SCMR 419.
- Muhammad Tufail v. Session Judge, Attock, PLD 2004 SC 89.
- Muhammad Younis v. the State, 2002 SCMR 1308.
- Nawab Ali v. the State, 2019 SCMR 2009.
- Nizamuddin and others v. the State, 1994 PLD 517.
- Pacific Exchange Rate Service. “Foreign Currency Units per 1 U.S. Dollar, 1950-2023.” Sauder School of Business. University of British Columbia. http://fx.sauder.ubc.ca/etc/USDpages.pdf.
- Pakistan Law Site. www.pakistanlawsite.com.
- Qaiser Ali and others v. Karachi Road Transport Corporation, 1986 PLD 489.
- Razi Begum v. Hijrayat Ali, PLD 1976 SC 44.
- Saadat Khan and others v. Shahid-ur-Rehman and others, 2017 SCP 84.
- Saifulla v. the State, 2003 SCMR 496.
- Sh. Muhammad Amjad v. the State, PLD 2003 SC 704.
- Talib Hussain v. the State, 1995 SCMR 1776.
- The State v. Rab Nawaz, PLD 1974 SC 87.
- Zakaria, Abdul Hadi. “Victim Support Systems in Malaysia.” In Victims and Criminal Justice: Asian Perspectives, edited by Tatsuya Ota, 197-205. Tokyo: Hogaku-Kenkyu-Kai Keio University, 2003.