Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 10 in Criminal Petition No. 42 of 1983, decided on 2nd February, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 25th January, 1983 of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Revision No. 627 of 1966).

---Ss. 307/34 & 458 read with Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 544‑A‑Attempt to murder‑Sentence‑Compromise between parties‑Sentence of accused reduced to period already undergone Order for payment of compensation passed under S. 544‑A, Cr. P. C. also set aside in view of compromise.‑[Compensation].

Khurshid Ahmad v. The State 1976 S C M R 193 ref.

Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Tanvir Ahmad, Additional Advocate‑General for the State.

This petition is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 7‑11‑1982 passed in Criminal Revision No. 627 of 1966, whereby the sentence of the petitioners, who were convicted under section 307/34, P. P. C. and sentenced each to suffer four years' R. I. and under section 458, P. P. C. and sentenced each to two years' .R. I. was reduced to two years' R. I. and one year's R. I. respectively.

2. The petitioners were tried under section 307/34/458, P. P. C. in connection with an occurrence which took place on 12‑1‑1965. All of them were convicted by a, learned Magistrate of Mianwali on 13‑7‑1965. Their appeal against the conviction and, sentence was dismissed by the Session Judge, Mianwali on 6‑6‑1966. They moved the Lahore High Court by a revision (bearing Cr. R. 627/66) and were released on bail on 5‑8‑1966. However, the said revision did not come up for hearing for more than 1 years and was heard on 7‑11‑1982 and ultimately dismissed. However, the learned Single Judge in the High Court considering that the petitioners had suffered the agony of a protracted trial and remained in suspense during the pendency of the appeal and revision reduced the sentence of each petitioner to two years' R. I. under section 307/34, P. P. C. and to one year's R. 1. under section 458, P. P. C. and ordered that both the sentences should run concurrently. Fateh Khan, Petitioner No. 1, was ordered to pay Rs. 5,000, as compensation under section 544‑A, Cr. P. C. and in default of the payment he was ordered to suffer one year's R. 1. in addition to his substantive sentence.

3. I support of this petition for leave to appeal, it is submitted that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the complainant is prepared to forgive and forget the past and bury the hatchet. He is also present before us in Court today and has supported this submission, in our presence. Reliance is also placed on a judgment of this Court entitled Khurshid Ahmad v. The State (1976 S C M R 193) wherein it was held, after converting a petition into an appeal that where the parties had compromised the matter, it was desirable in the interest of peace and good relations between the parties and in order to prevent further bitterness to accept such a compromise and to reduce the sentence of the accused to the period already undergone Accordingly, notice was issued to the Advocate‑General, Punjab, to ascertain his point of view in the present case and the learned Assistant Advocate- General, Mr. Tanvir Ahmad, has appeared in response to the notice.

4. We observe that the petitioners remained as under‑trial prisoners for about 31 months, before they were bailed out. About their conviction on 31‑12‑1965 they were arrested and remained under imprisonment until granted bail by the High Court on 5‑8‑1968. Accordingly, they have remained in jail for a period of about one year.

5. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General has submitted that in these circumstances and to secure amity between the parties he has no objection if the procedure followed in the precedent case is also applied in this case.

6. We accordingly convert this petition into an appeal and allow it and reduce the sentence of the petitioners from two years'. R. I. under section 307/ 34, P. P. C. and one year's R. I. under section 458, P. P. C. to the period already undergone by each petitioner. In view of the compromise, the order of payment of compensation under section 544‑A, Cr. P. C. passed against Fateh Khan, petitioner No. 1 is also set aside. We further direct that the petitioners be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

7. We may observe that the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 even after the dismissal of their revision petition by the High Court have not been arrested so far, and surrendered in Court before us today and not only Sultan Muhammad, respondent No. 3, has so far been arrested.

8. The result will be that Sultan Muhammad, respondent No. 3, shall also be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

9. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.

Appeal 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.