Compromise no longer possible in terrorism cases, rules court
The Supreme Court has ruled that compromise between two parties in cases of terrorism is no longer possible.
The court announced its verdict in a case about the definition of terrorism. It was reserved on April 3.
A seven-member larger bench, headed by Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, has ordered that compromise in cases of terrorism will no longer lead to “reducing of the sentence” under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
Those who have been sentenced to death, their punishments won’t be reduced to life imprisonment after reaching any compromise now.
“A non-compoundable offence [in which compromise isn’t possible] remains non-compoundable even if… compounding takes place between the relevant parties,” the order reads. The suspects will no longer be acquitted in the non-compoundable offence.
Matters pertaining to the reduction of sentences will be decided by the court. “The sentence reduction lies within the discretion of the court,” it adds.
At an earlier hearing, Justice Khosa had remarked that there is obscurity in the anti-terrorism laws, which needs to be defined.
