Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1974, decided on 11^thJune 1974.

----- S. 412 read with S. 345(5)-Accused convicted on plea of guilty conviction itself though cannot be challenged yet appellate Court a not debarred from permitting composition in cases of compound s able offence-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 323/34 & 324/34.

Imdadally Agha for Appellants.

Usman Ghani Rashid, Asstt. A: G. for the State.

Date of hearing : 11th June 1974.

The four appellants herein were convicted, on their plea of guilt, by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nawabshah for offences punishable under sections 323/34 and 324/34, P. P. C. and each of them was sentenced on the first count to R. I. for four months and on the second count to R. I. for nine months, both the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant Murad Ali was further convicted, on his plea of guilt, of an offence under section 379 P. P. C. and was sentenced for the said offence to R. I. for nine months, this sentence to run concurrently with the sentence imposed on him for the offences under sections 323/34 and 324/34, P. P. C. The appellants have preferred an appeal against their conviction and sentence.

The incident which has given rise to the present appeal occurred on 19-3-1971, at about 2.45 p.m. in the vicinity of Depar Minor. The prosecution case is that at the above time, complainant Wahid Bux, along with one Mohammad Bux, was going towards his village, when on the way, near the above Minor, all the appellants came up, of whom appellants Khadim Husain and Ghulam Mustafa were armed with hatchets, while the other two were armed with lathis. It is alleged that appellant Khadim Husain asked the complainant to leave the land which had been let out to him by one Usman Daheri, but as the complainant refused to do so, appellant Khadim Husain caused hatchet injuries to the complainant while the other three appellants also caused injuries to him and his companion, Mohammad Bux. It is further alleged that during the fight, a bundle containing clothes, a registered deed and a purse with Rs. 50 in cash, belonging to the complai nant fell down to the ground, which was taken away by appellant Murad Ali, from whose possession the said property was subsequently recovered by the police.

An application has been submitted before me today, which has been singed by all the four appellants as also the two injured, Wahid Bux and Mohammad Bux, requesting for permission to compound the offences under sections 323/34 and 324/34, P. P. C. Although a copy of the medical evidence has not been filed, nor the same has been produced before me, it appears from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the injuries sustained by Wahid Bux and Muhammad Bux were of a simple nature. The parties are said to be living in the same neighbourhood and it is urged that the acceptance of the compromise would bring about cordial relations between them and eliminate source of future conflict and animosity between them. The learned Assistant Advocate-General, who appears for the State, does not oppose the grant of permission to compound the aforesaid offences, but expressed some doubts whether this Court can grant such a permission in the exercise of its appellate powers. He, however, conceded that it is permissible for this Court to treat the appeal as a revision application and in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, to grant the necessary permission to the parties to compound the case. In my opinion the doubts of the learned Assistant A:-G. are not well founded. It is true that in a case where the accused has pleaded guilty appeal lies only against the extent or legality of the sentence and the conviction itself cannot be questioned, but this does not mean that in such cases the appellate Court is precluded from permitting the parties to compound the offences, if they are compoundable under the provisions of subsection (5) of section 345, Cr. P. C. The said subsection is couched in vide terms and there is nothing in it to indicate that it is not applicable to cases where appeal is preferred by persons who have pleaded guilty. The only requirements of this subsection appear to be, Firstly, that the offence should be compoundable, and secondly, that the appellate Court should accord its permission to the compounding of the offence. I, however, do not wish to express any firm opinion on this point, as there is no dispute on the point that in the exercise of its revisional jurisdic tion this Court is competent to accord permission to the compounding of offences. I would accordingly permit the parties to compound the said offences. The parties have admitted before me that they have compounded the offences under section 323/34 and 324/34, P. P. C. I accordingly record the compromise and acquit all the four appellants of the said offences.

There remains for consideration the conviction and the sentence imposed upon appellant Murad Ali for the offence under section 379, P. P. C. Since this appellant has pleaded guilty to the said offence, he cannot chal lenge or question his conviction and is only entitled to question the legality and the quantum of sentence. Mr. Imdadally Agha, the learned counsel for the appellant, hag frankly conceded that the sentence, which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has imposed for this offence, is perfectly legal. He, however, submitted that it was excessive, looking to the circumstances of the case, and that there was scope for its reduction. I am unable to accept his submission. Appellant Murad Ali and his companions, not only attacked, without provocation, complainant Wahid Bux and his companion, Muhammad Bux, but appellant Murad Ali also took away the bundle, containing clothes, cash etc., belonging to complainant Wahid Bux, which articles were subsequently secured from the possession of this appellant by the police. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the sentence imposed on this appellant by the trial Court was harsh. In fact, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dealt very leniently with this appellant and has awarded him a comparatively light sentence. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the sentence imposed on him for the offence of theft does not warrant any interference. I would accordingly dismiss the appeal of appellant Murad Ali so far as his conviction under section 379, F. P. C. is concerned and maintain the sentence which has been imposed on him for the said offence.

Order accordingly,

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.