Find a Lawyer

Petition for Review No. 6 of 1981 in Criminal Appeal No. 430 of 1979, decided on 8th May, 1985.

‑‑‑Art. 188‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Review by Supreme Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court against judgment of death sentence by High Court‑‑Review petition filed praying for reduction in sentence on ground that parties by that time had compromised the matter‑‑No error apparent or face of record pointed out‑‑Fact that parties had decided to bury their past hatreds did not mean that there was any error muchless an error apparent in order of Supreme Court‑‑Review petition dismissed in circumstances.

Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on-Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing: 8th May, 1985.

‑‑Abdul Aziz petitioner was accused of murdering Abdul Hafiz at about 2 p.m. on 3‑6‑1974, near the Passport Office in Sialkot. He was tried for the offence and was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced inter alia to death. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court and the death sentence was confirmed. He then filed a petition for leave to appeal before this Court which was dismissed in limine by the impugned order.

2. He has now filed this Review Petition praying for reduction in sentence on the ground that the parties have compromised the matter. The father of the convict‑petitioner as well as father of the deceased are present in Court. The latter has admitted having received Rs. 50,000 from the former as a result of the compromise and states that he has forgiven him.

3. We are afraid we are unable to interfere in the matter because the petitioner has not been able to show any error apparent on the p face of the record. We have, therefore, no option but to dismiss the Review Petition.

4. However, before parting with the matter we may mention that in a similar case, where the parties had compromised the matter and had filed a review for reduction in sentence, this Court while dismissing the review application observed as follows:‑

"Learned counsel then submitted that parties had settled their disputes and forgiven the petitioner, therefore, the further submission was that unless the sentence of death was altered to life imprisonment, in accordance with the compromise reached between the family of the deceased and the family of the petitioner, it would lead to another cycle of murders. In support of this plea, the learned counsel relied on a compromise deed, filed before us which according to the learned counsel had been signed by the families of the deceased and the petitioner. Reluctant as we are to reject a compromise which could lead to a reduction of violence and hatred, the compromise arrived at between the parties would be no ground whatever for a review of a judgment, because the fact that the parties have decided to bury their past hatreds does not mean that there is any error much less an error apparent in our judgment."

In view of the above‑noted observation, it would be open to the petitioner, if so advised, to approach the Government through a mercy petition.

M . B . A . Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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