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 Petition No. 368/80, decided on 28th April, 1985.
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Compromise‑ Mitigating circumstance‑‑Parties having compromised matter so as to end family feud and to be able to live in peace and amity, constitutes a mitigating circumstance entitling convicts to lesser sentence‑‑Sentences reduced from death to imprisonment for life, with benefit of S. 382‑B, Cr. P.C. ‑‑[Compromise].
Ataullah Sajjad, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Petitions Nos. 610/80 and 28‑R/80).
Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 28th April, 1985.
‑This judgment will dispose of (i) Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 368/80 filed by Ghulam Jafir and Hanif; (ii) Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 610/80, filed by Muhammad Akram; and (iii) J.P. No. 28/R/80 filed by Muhammad Latif.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to these petitions are that one Muhammad Hayat was murdered on 26‑1‑1976. Muhammad Latif (petitioner in J.P. No. 28‑R/80), and Ghulam Jafir and Hanif (petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 368/80), were tried for that murder. Muhammad Latif was sentenced to death and a fine of Rs.5,000 (one year's R.I. in default of payment of fine) under section 302, P.P.C. and while Ghulam Jafir was convicted under section 307, P.P.C. and sentenced to 4 years' R.I, and a fine of Rs.500 or in default to undergo 3 months' R.I. Hanif petitioner (in Criminal Petition No. 368/80), was convicted under section 324, P.P.C. and sentenced to 3 years' R.I.
3. In retaliation of the murder of Muhammad Hayat, one Fateh Muhammad was murdered on 12‑3‑1976, Muhammad Akram (petitioner in Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 610/80) and 3 others were tried for that murder. The three co‑accused were acquitted by the learned trial Court, while Muhammad Akram was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced to death plus a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to undergo one year's R.I. His death sentence was subsequently confirmed by the High Court.
4. All the above‑noted persons have challenged their respective convictions and sentences through the aforementioned 3 petitions.
5. Learned counsel for Ghulam Jafir and Hanif (petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 368/80) does not press their petition on merits. That petition is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
6. As for the remaining two petitions, i.e. filed by Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Latif, it is stated before us that the parties have compromised the matter so that their feud may come to an end and enabling the parties to live with peace and amity. In support of this contention 5 affidavits have been produced. Three of these are by (i) Mst. Sahib Khatoon, widow of Fateh Khan, (ii) Mst. Khatoon mother of Fateh Khan deceased, and (iii) Bhai Khan, real brother of Fateh Khan, wherein they have stated that they have forgiven Muhammad Akram (petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 610/80). Similarly, from the other side Mst. Kaneez Fatima widow of Muhammad Hayat and Zafar Abbas, the real son of Muhammad Hayat (deceased) have filed affidavits, swearing that they have forgiven Muhammad Latif (petitioner in J.P. No. 28‑R/80). It may be mentioned that Zafar Abbas real son of Muhammad Hayat (deceased) is present in Court who admits the contents of his affidavit and has been identified by Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate.
7. In view of the above‑noted facts we convert these two petitions (i.e. Criminal Petition No. 610/80 and JP No. 28‑R/80), into appeals and dispose of them as such.
8. We feel that the fact that the parties have compromised the matter so as to end the family feud and to be able to live in peace anti amity henceforth, constitutes a mitigating circumstance entitling Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Latif (appellants), to the lesser sentence under section 302, P.P.C. Consequently their sentences under the said section are reduced from death to imprisonment for life. They are also given the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr. P. C. The sentence of fine are however, maintained.
M. I. Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer