PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has upheld sentence of life imprisonment awarded to a convict by a trial court last year in Nowshera in honour-related murder of his wife.

A bench consisting of Justice Sahibzada Asadullah and Justice Inamullah Khan rejected an appeal filed by the convict, Jehanzeb, ruling that prosecution succeeded in proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The bench observed that there could be no denial of the fact that the gruesome occurrence shocked all and sundry.

“The brutality of the incident is not reflected merely from the fact that the deceased was done to death, but more significantly from the manner in which, after her killing, her dead body was concealed in a drum and remained there for approximately 20 to 24 hours,” said the bench.

“It was only on the following day that the appellant approached police station, lodged report, admitted his involvement and thereby set the criminal law into motion,” the bench pointed out in its 29-page detailed judgement wherein it discussed several aspects of the case.

The appellant as convicted by an additional sessions judge on April 14, 2025, and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He was also made liable to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased woman to the tune of Rs800,000.

The FIR of the occurrence was registered on Dec 25, 2021, at Nowshera Kalan police station, when the appellant himself reported the matter to police.

He told police that he was working as a painter in Rawalpindi and developed suspicion regarding the character of his wife. He alleged that at the time of occurrence, when he was entering his house, an unknown person, upon seeing him, fled away from the spot.

Thereafter, he claimed, he entered his house and, allegedly in the name of honour, shot and killed his wife with a pistol. It was alleged that after committing the crime, he placed the dead body of his wife inside a blue drum kept in the washroom and threw the pistol near the drum.

Subsequently, the appellant retracted from his earlier statement.

The father of the deceased woman initially named the appellant but subsequently attempted to extend a concession to him owing to family arrangements and domestic considerations.

The bench rejected the appellant’s contention that he was having minor children and his conviction would leave them without any care and protection of a parent.

“The law cannot be rendered subservient to considerations of sympathy which arise only after the commission of a crime. Courts are guardians of justice, not dispensers of misplaced compassion,” the bench observed.

It said that the welfare of innocent children was undoubtedly a matter of concern and deserved every possible protection from the family and society, such considerations could not eclipse the rights of the victim nor dilute the accountability of an offender.

“To hold otherwise would create an impermissible precedent whereby the existence of dependents becomes a shield against criminal responsibility,” the bench ruled.

It said that once the evidence established culpability, the court would be failing in its solemn duty if it were to extend the benefit of acquittal merely on the ground that the accused had minor children, who might be deprived of his company or care.

“Justice must remain even-handed; otherwise, sympathy for the offender would come at the cost of justice for the victim,” the court observed.

The bench has also discussed a legal question whether the entirety of the FIR becomes inadmissible merely because the maker subsequently assumes the status of an accused, or whether those portions of the report which do not amount to a confession of guilt may still retain evidentiary relevance.

The bench observed that the appellant’s admission of having caused the death of the deceased constituted, in substance, a confession made before a police officer.

“Such a statement is nothing but an extra-judicial confession addressed to police and, by the virtue of well-settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, carries no evidentiary value against the maker except to the limited extent recognised by law. Consequently, the confessional portion of the FIR cannot be relied upon as substantive evidence of guilt,” the bench ruled.

Discussing earlier judgements of superior courts, it said that the law did not permit such a statement to be used as proof of guilt merely because it was incorporated in the form of a First Information Report.

Published in Dawn, June 24th, 2026