Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1986 in Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 457 of 1985, decided on 12th March, 1986.
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 23‑10‑1985, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 455 of 1985).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.345‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.325/342/149‑‑Compounding of offence‑‑Appeal against conviction and sentence‑‑Victim of assault stating before Court that he and his family had compromised matter with accused because they wanted to live with them amicably, in order to obviate further hostility between them and had not received any compensation for forgiving them‑ Considering nature of attack and injuries inflicted by appellants, Supreme Court refused to permit compounding of matter, maintained conviction but reduced sentence to one already undergone and remitted fine in view of victim's genuinely forgiving his assailants with laudable motive of peaceful co‑existence in future.
Asghar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Khalil Ramdey Additional Advocate‑General for the State. Abdul Asim Jafari, Advocate‑‑on‑Record for the Complainant.
Date of hearing: 12th March, 1986.
‑Ghulam Rasul, Muhammad Hussain and Ramzan, petitioners, were accused alongwith some others of offence under section 325/342/149, P.P.C. They were convicted of the said offences by the trial Court which sentenced each of them to 7 years' R.1. under section 325/149, P.P.C. and a fine of Rs.5,000. It also convicted all of them under section 342, P.P.C. and sentenced each to one years R.I. The High Court vide the impugned judgment, dated 23‑1‑1985, accepted the appeal of 6 of the co‑accused but rejected that of the three petitioners. It, however, reduced their sentence from 7 years' R.I. to 3 years' R.I. each and a fine of Rs.3,000. Sentences under section 34, P.P.C. was also reduced from 1 year's R.I. to 6 months' R.I. and fine of Rs.500 each.
They have now come up to this Court for grant of leave to appeal against the aforementioned judgment of the High Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate‑General who appeared in response to a notice issued by this Court, as also petitioner Mirza Muhammad Beg himself who is present in person, we convert the petition into appeal and proceed to dispose of it as such.
3. Mirza Mumtaz Beg (petitioner), who is the victim of the assault by the petitioners has stated before us that he and his family have compromised the matter with the accused‑petitioner because they want to live with them amicably, in order to obviate further hostility between them. They have not received any compensation whatsoever for forgiving them.
4. Considering the nature of the attack made and the injuries inflicted by the accused‑appellants, we do not think this a fit case in which the matter should be permitted to be compounded. However, in view of the fact that he (Mirza Mumtaz Beg), has genuinely forgiven his assailant with the laudable motive of peaceful co‑existence in future, we think it is a fit case for reduction of sentence. We, therefore, maintain their conviction, but reduce their sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone by them and remit the fine imposed on them.
With the above modification in the sentences, the appeal stands disposed of.
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