Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 1982, decided on 27th March, 1982.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 17‑2‑1980 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Circuit, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 1979/BWP and Murder Reference No. 16/1979/BWP).
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑
‑‑ S. 302 read with Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 382 t Reconciliation‑Sentence‑Widow of deceased, deceased's mother and maternal uncle (complainant) identified by Chairman, Union Council appearing before Supreme Court, filing signed/thumb‑marked state ment to support fact of complainant having compromised matter and received Rupees, seventy thousands from accused appellant's father in satisfaction and as compensation‑Compromise also stated to be voluntary and deceased's relatives having forgiven appellant‑State counsel not opposing giving of benefit of S. 382‑B to appellant Lesser, sentence under S. 302, Penal Code‑ 1860, held, sufficient in circumstances of case‑Sentence of death reduced to one of imprison ment for life but sentence of fine in terms awarded by trial Court maintained.‑[Sentence].
Muhammad Bashir v. State P L D 1982 S C 139 ref.
Imtiaz Ahmad Gujjar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
Neamat Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Date of hearing : 27th March, 1982.
M. S. H. QURESHI, J.
‑‑This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 17‑2‑1980, whereby the appellant's appeal against his conviction under section 302, P. P. C. and the sentence of death and fine of Rs. 5,000 or in default in payment thereof, R. 1. for two years, recorded by the trial Court, had been dismissed and the death sentence had been confirmed.
2. The case against the appellant, Muzaffar Mustafa alias Zafar Ali, was that he had on the 7th July 1978 at 10 a.m. attacked Abdul Karim deceased near the Bus‑Stand Mahand within P. S. Channogoth, District Bahawalpur, and inflicted two chhuri injuries which proved fatal. The appellant, who had fled the scene, was arrested the next day and blood‑stained shirt and chaddar were recovered from his person while a blood‑stained chhurri was recovered from his house at his pointing. During the trial, only Muhammad Ishaq (P. W. 4) supported the case of the prosecution while the other eye‑witnesses, namely, Ghulam Yasin (P. W. 1), Abdur Rehman (P. W. 2) and Nazir Ahmad (P. W. 3), did not support for the admitted reason that the parties had compromised the matter. The bus‑Conductor Abdur Razzaq (P. W. 5) and bus‑cleaner Manzoor Ahmad (P. W. 6) also examined by the prosecution as eye‑witnesses, failed to support. The trial Court did not believe the recoveries but relying on the sole evidence of Muhammad Ishaq, as supported by the medical evidence convicted and sentenced the appellant.
3. Leave was granted to the appellant to consider the question of sentence in view of the assertion that the parties have reached reconciliation.
4. Today Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant has appeared alongwith Mst Halima Mai (widow of the deceased), Mst. Janat Mai (mother of the deceased) and Ghulam Yasin, the maternal uncle and complai nant in the case. They were identified by Muhammad Qasim, the Chairman of the Channigoth Union Council, who has produced his identity card in proof of his own identification. They have filed a signed/thumb‑marked statement to support the fact that the complainant has compromised the matter and has in satisfaction received the sum of Rs. 70,600 (rupees seventy thousand only) as compensation from the father of the appellant. They have further stated that the compromise was voluntary and that they have forgiven the appellant. Learned counsel has urged for reduction of the sentence of death in view of the decision of this Court in Muhammad Bashir v. State P L D 1982 S C 139, and for giving the appellant the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr. P. C This is not opposed by Mr. Nemat Khan, learned counsel appearing for the State. Considering the circumstance of the case. we are satisfied that the lesser sentence will suffice the ends of justice. We, accordingly, reduce the sentence of death to that of imprisonment for life with benefit under section 382‑B, Cr. P. C. but maintain the sentence of fine in terms awarded by the trial Court. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sentence reduced.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer