• Says executing sole surviving parent would create ‘judiciary-sponsored orphanhood’
• Convict had killed his wife and daughter in Vehari in 2021
ISLAMABAD: Keeping in view the welfare of a child, the Supreme Court on March 10 commuted the death sentence of a convicted father to life imprisonment, observing that executing a sole surviving parent would render the child a “silent victim” of the justice system.
“When the judiciary imposes the death penalty upon a surviving parent, it inadvertently sanctions what can only be described as ‘judiciary-sponsored orphanhood,’ observed Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim in a judgement he authored.
Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and Justice Ibrahim were members of a three-judge Supreme Court bench that had taken up a jail petition of Muhammad Amin. He had sought the annulment of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench’s June 17, 2025 decision affirming his death sentence.
Muhammad Amin was charged with the murder of his wife, Ms Kausar Ghani, and daughter, Ms Zunaira Amin, as well as attempting to kill another daughter, Ms Insa Amin, and injuring his brothers-in-law. The incident occurred on April 22, 2021, at the family home in Muslim Town, Vehari.
According to the FIR, the motive stemmed from a dispute over the sale of one acre of agricultural land. The petitioner wanted to sell the property, but his wife and children opposed the decision. The complainant, Amir Ghani Siddiqui, brother of the deceased wife, had arrived at the house the previous night after learning of an altercation between the couple.
On the morning of the incident, after offering Fajr prayer, the complainant and his brother returned to find the petitioner standing at the kitchen door armed with a dagger, inflicting repeated blows on his wife and daughters. Ms Kausar Ghani and Ms Zunaira Amin succumbed to their injuries at the scene, while the injured Ms Insa Amin managed to escape and was rushed to DHQ Hospital, Vehari.
The trial court — the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari — convicted Muhammad Amin under Section 302(b) PPC on Nov 30, 2021, and sentenced him to death on two counts, with a direction to pay Rs1 million as compensation.
The Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, upheld the conviction and confirmed the death sentence on June 17, 2025. However, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment.
In a 10-page judgement, Justice Ibrahim observed that while the law seeks to punish the offender, the ultimate weight of execution falls upon the innocent descendants who, having already lost one parent to a crime, are deprived of the second by the state.
Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) dictates that in every action concerning children, their best interests must remain a primary consideration. Consistent with this international obligation, the Supreme Court is of the view that the presence of minor children can serve as a mitigating factor in capital sentencing, observed Justice Ibrahim.
“When the accused is the sole surviving parent of minor children, commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment serves the ends of justice while upholding the state’s duty to protect rather than extinguish the child’s last remaining familial link.”
“To commute a death sentence to life imprisonment is not to excuse the crime, but to prevent the state from becoming the architect of a child’s total abandonment,” Justice Ibrahim observed, adding that justice must be tempered with the realisation that the law should preserve the remnants of a broken family rather than complete its destruction.
The spirit of avoiding “judiciary-sponsored orphanhood” is arguably already embedded in the legislative wisdom of Section 306(c) PPC, which wisely recognises that when the ‘wali’ of victim is the direct descendant of the accused, qisas cannot be enforced.
It can be inferred from this clause that the law must prioritise the preservation of the remaining parental lineage over qisas, Justice Ibrahim emphasized, adding that in the instant case, the petitioner was the sole surviving parent of a minor daughter, Ms Insa Amin, aged approximately 15 to 16 years.
“In these circumstances, treating these two aspects as mitigating factor, we are of the considered view that awarding the sentence of imprisonment for life to the petitioner-convict would adequately meet the ends of justice.”
Published in Dawn, March 11th, 2026.
