Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 1981, heard on 28th April, 1985.

(Against the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 27‑1‑1976 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 458 of 1972).

‑‑‑Ss. 304, Part II, 326, 148 & 149‑‑Sentence‑‑Compromise‑‑Accused acquitted by trial Court but on appeal High Court setting aside order of acquittal and awarding sentence of imprisonment and fine to each accused according to his own individual act‑‑Parties however compromising inter se with a wish to live in peace and amity with each other‑‑Prayer for reduction of sentence, held, reasonable and reduction of sentence would be in interest of justice ‑Sentence of imprisonment reduced to one already undergone.‑‑

Aftab Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court, M.A. Kadri, Advocate- on‑Record and Ghulam Bari Salimi, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing: 28th April, 1985.

.‑‑This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 27‑1‑1976 whereby the State appeal against acquittal of the four appellants was allowed.

2. The four appellants alongwith 3 others were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, under sections 148 and 302/326/149, P.P.C. It was alleged against them that they murdered one Muhammad Ashraf by inflicting a single Chhuri blow and causing injuries to three others at Ishawela on 12‑6‑1970, in Chak No. 180/G/B. Police Station, Rajani, District Lyallpur (now Faisalabad). The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, by his judgment and order, dated 16‑12‑1971, held that the prosecution case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and, as a result he acquitted all the seven accused in the case. The State filed Criminal Appeal No. 458 of 1972 in the Lahore High Court against the acquittal of the accused persons. A Division Bench of the High Court, by its judgment, dated 27‑7‑1976, dismissed the appeal against the three co‑accused, but allowed the State appeal against the four appellants. The High Court held that the injuries were caused in a sudden and unpremeditated fight and each of the accused was responsible for his own individual act. Appellants Pir Bakhsh, Akram, Sharif have accordingly been convicted under section 326, P.P.C. and each of them was sentenced to four years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default thereof, to undergo further R.1. for one year. Hanif appellant was found to have inflicted the fatal injury on the deceased and consequently has been convicted under section 304, Part‑II, P.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000, or in default thereof, to undergo further R.I. for two years.

It may be mentioned that Hanif appellant absconded. As such the leave order with respect to him is withdrawn. This order will consequently deal only with the appeal of Pir Bakhsh, Muhammad Akram and Sharif.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the parties have compromised the matter out of Court. Neither the State counsel nor any one from the complainant side is present to controvert this fact.

4. The only prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellants before us is that in view of the compromise between the parties the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the aforementioned three appellants may be reduced.

5. Considering that the parties have compromised inter se, they wish to live in peace and amity with each other henceforth, we think the prayer is reasonable and reduction in the appellants' sentence would be in the interest of justice. Consequently the appeal is allowed to the extent that the sentences of imprisonment awarded to Pir Bakhsh, Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Sharif, appellants, are reduced to that already undergone by them. Sentences of fine are, however, maintained.

M . Y . H Appeal partly 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.