Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition No. 257 of 1981, decided on 3rd May, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 7‑4‑1981 of the Lahore High Court in Cr. A. No. 232 of 1979).

---Art. 185(3)‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 304(1)/324 ‑ Petition for leave to appeal‑Pending petition, parties being closely related to each other desirous of ending further bitterness between family compromising their differences and agreeing to live amicably- Petitioner filing application before Supreme Court stating that legal heirs of all 3 deceased persons have accepted compensation from heirs of accused persons and, therefore, heirs of deceased having (pardoned ‑ accused have no objection if accused acquitted Advocate‑General expressing agreement to development in case ‑Complainant and some heirs of deceased also present in Court and others having filed affidavits ‑ Petitioners not pressing petition for leave to appeal Supreme Court accepting request of parties, converting petition into appeal, and reducing sentence of such accused to period already undergone while maintaining fine imposed‑Fine to be paid to heirs in addition to compensation already paid.

Nemat Khan, Advocate. Supreme Court with Iqbal Ahmad Quraishi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑ on‑Record for the Complainant.

Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Advocate‑General (Punjab) for the State.

Date of hearing: 3rd May, 1983.

This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7‑3‑1981 of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court disposing Murder Reference No. 78 of 1979 y two connected appeals, namely, Criminal Appeals Nos. 185 and 232 of 1979 and Criminal Revision No. 280 of 1979.

2. In a tragic incident between close relatives in Chak No. 50/NB on 16‑9‑1977, three miles away from the Police Station Cantt. , Sargodha, three persons lost their lives, namely, Haji Khan Muhammad, Zia Ullah and Umar Hayat. The learned trial Court convicted some of the petitioners under section 302, P. P. C. and sentenced them to death. However, on appeals and reference the High Court ultimately found Khizar Hayat, Petitioner No. 1 guilty under section 304, Part 1, P. P. C. for causing the death of Haji Khan Muhammad and sentenced to life imprisonment. A fine of Rs. 5,000 was imposed or in default whereof two years' R. I. was ordered. The fine, on realization was to be paid to the heirs of Haji Khan Muhammad. He was also convicted under section 324, P. P. C. for causing injuries to Mukhtar Ahmad P. W. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment to a period already undergone. Petitioner No. 2 and Petitioner No. 4 Muhammad Yar and Zaffar Iqbal were convicted under section 304, Part I, P. P. C. for causing the death of Zia Ullah deceased and they also were sentenced to life imprisonment. Muhammad Yar Petitioner No. 2 was imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000 or in default to undergo two years' R. I., while Zaffar Iqbal, Petitioner No. 4 was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1,000, or in default to undergo one year's R. I. The fines, on realisation, were ordered to be paid as compensation to the heirs of Zia Ullah deceased. Muhammad Ali, Petitioner No. 3, was convicted under section 304, Part 1, P. P. C. for causing the death of Umar Hayat deceased and he was also sentenced to imprisonment for life and. a fine of Rs. 1,000 which, on realization, was to be paid to the heirs of Umar Hayat deceased or in default of payment of fine to undergo two years' R. I. Petitioner No. 5, Muhammad Khan, was convicted under section 324, P. P. C. for causing injuries to Mst. Sughran Bibi P: W. and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone by him. Umar Daraz Petitioner No. 6 was convicted under ‑section 324, P. P. C. to Mukhtar Ahmad P. W. He too was sentenced to the imprison ment already undergone by him. Muhammad Yousuf, Petitioner No. 7, was convicted under section 323, P. P. C. for causing injuries to Muhammad Ali P. W, and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone,

3. The petitioners challenged the above convictions and sent by this petition for leave to appeal. During the pendency of this petition however, the parties, who are closely related to each other and being desirous of ending further bitterness between the family, compromised their different and agreed to live amicably in future. In a petition filed before us t parties informed us that the legal heirs of the deceased Rai Umar Haya Rai Zia Ullah and Haji Khan Muhammad have accepted Qassas by which they really mean compensation) from the heirs of the petitioner and, therefore, the heirs of the deceased had no objection if the petitioners a acquitted by this Court.

4. We issued notice to the Advocate‑General, Punjab to ascertain his views in connection with this petition and have heard him. He expressed his pleasure at this development.

5. Some of the heirs of the deceased persons are also present in Court and others have filed their affidavits. The complainant is also present. It is stated before us that the parties have, indeed, compromised the matter, the heirs of the deceased have accepted compensation and have forgiven the petitioners.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also stated that be does not press the petition as far as Petitioners Nos. 5 to 7 are concerned, who were sentenced to the imprisonment already undergone by them.

7. The petition of the Petitioners Nos. 5 to 7 is, accordingly, dismissed as not pressed.

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we think it desirable in the interest of peace and good relations between the parties and in order to avoid bitterness between them in the future that we may accept the request of the parties.

9. We would, accordingly, convert this petition into an appeal and allow it and reduce the sentences of the first four appellants, namely Khizar Hayat, Muhammad Yar, Muhammad Ali and Zaffdr Iqbal to the period already undergone by them. The sentence with regard to the payment of fine imposed upon them is, however, maintained. The fines shall, on realisation, be paid to the heirs of the deceased persons as al ready directed. These amounts shall fee in addition to the compensation, which has already been paid to them. The appellants shall on payment of the fines as indicated above, be released forthwith, if not required in any other matter.

M. Z, M. Appeal partly allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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