Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1981, decided on 20th December, 1982.

---Ss. 307, 365 & 148--Sentence, reduction in--Injured person filing affidavit regarding his compromise with accused-persons and as such no more interested in sentences awarded to them--Sentence of about one year already served by accused, held, would meet ends of justice, in circumstances.--[Sentence--Compromise].

Ch. Sagheer Ahmad for Appellants.

Malik Wazir Ghazi for the State.

Date of hearing: 20th December, 1982.

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Magistrate Section 30 (J), Multan, whereby he on 28-1-1981 convicted the appellants, namely, Gul Anar, Gul Nawaz, Allah Wasaya, Haq Nawaz, Safdar Ali and Ghulam Sarwar under sections 307/149/365 and 148, P.P:C. Under section 307/149, P.P.C. they were sentenced to 5 years' R.I. each and a fine of Rs.1,000 each, in default thereof to further R.I. for 6 months. Under section 365/149, P.P.C. to 5 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 each. In default thereof to 6 months' R.I. and under section 148 P.P.C. to one year's R.I. with the direction that the sentences would run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case is that the appellants on 1-5-1978, abducted Mazhar P.W.6 with intent to confine him wrongfully and had also launched the murderous assault upon him.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants does not challenge the conviction of the appellants under section 307/365/149/148, P.P.C. and requests for the reduction of the sentence on the ground of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties.

4. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record find that there is sufficient evidence to connect the appellants with the commission of the offence punishable under section 307/365/149/148, P.P.C. and as such the learned counsel has rightly not challenged the conviction of the appellants. As for the sentence, I find that the appellants are in jail since their conviction which was recorded on 28-1-1981. Furthermore, the injured namely, Mazhar Ali P.W. 6 who is present before me and has been identified by Mian Bashir Ahmad, Advocate, states that he has compromised with the appellants and is no more interested in the sentence awarded to them. He owns compromise deed marked 'A'. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the sentence awarded to the petitioners /appellants is excessive and if the same is reduced to one already undergone it would meet the case. Order accordingly. The appellants if not required in any other case, shall be released forthwith. The appeal is disposed of.

S.G.D. Compromise accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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