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.
---S. 304, Part I--Compromise--Mitigating circumstance--Parties coming to compromise without any pressure and with only desire of resorting to congenial atmosphere among their families--Complainant party pardoning accused and not interested in detention of accused- Compromise between parties accepted and treated as a mitigating circumstance for reduction of sentence--Sentence reduced from ten years to one already undergone.--[Sentence].
Khurshid Ahmad v. The State 1976 S C M R 193 ref.
Dr. Khalid Ranjha for Appellants.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 27th September, 1982.
This appeal has been filed on behalf of Faqir son of Bakhshu, Desu son of Munshi and Qadu son of Nathu who were convicted under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari who sentenced Desu and Qadu to life imprisonment each and Faqir to 10 years' R.I. They were also fined Rs.3,000 each and in default whereof six months' simple imprisonment was awarded. It was further directed that if fine was realised it shall be paid in equal share to the legal heirs of both the deceased. By the same order 12 co-accused of the appellants were given benefit of doubt and acquitted.
2. Brief stated facts are that there existed a dispute over the possession or some land between the complainant and the appellants' parties. On 11-4-1979 at Fajarwela, the appellants alongwith 12 others (acquitted co-accused) attacked the complainant party in Kills. No.3 Sq. No. 28 of Chak No. 180/E.B. Husta and Allah Bakhsh were killed in that incident and Muhammad Ali, Muhammad Yaqub, Ismail, Khan Muhammad and Abdul Haque were injured. Abdul Haque complainant lodged the report at Police Station Sadar Vehari, the same day at about 8-30 a.m. at a distance of about 9 miles from the place of occurrence. It is admitted that the complainant party also while defending themselves caused injuries to Khushi, Munshi, Amir, etc. co-accused of the appellants. Ultimately 15 persons were challaned to face the murder charge.
3. The learned trial Court held that only the appellants participated in the occurrence. It was further held that on the basis of proved facts the appellants were not guilty of committing the offence of murder as, the incident took place suddenly, in the heat of passions without pre-meditation and that the appellants did not take undue advantage of the situation. In view of this finding, the appellants were held guilty under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. and were sentenced as indicated above.
4. During the pendency of this appeal, the heirs of both the deceased compromised with the appellants which was brought about in a largely attended Panchayat of the elders of the family and notables of the Ilaqa. Mst. Kalsoon widow of Allah Bakhsh deceased, Nawab, Ali Muhammad, Mst. Bano brothers and sister of Husta deceased and Mst. Bibi, his widow have also appeared before me and filed affidavits confirming the aforesaid compromise.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the compromise in criminal cases is not only frequently being approved by the superior Courts of the country, rather they consider it a mitigating circumstances and reckon it desirable in the interest of peace and good relations between the parties and, therefore, reduce the sentence. I have noted that the parties have come to a compromise without any pressure and with a sheer desire of restoring congenial atmosphere among their families, which in my view shall help to improve the law and order situation in the country. It appears that the complainant party has pardoned the appellants in the name of Almighty, so they are not interested in the detention of the appellants any more. In this regard a reference may be made with advantage to Khurshid Ahmad v. The State 1976 S C M R 193 wherein the sentence of the convict was reduced on account of compromise. Respectfully following the dictum laid down in the above-cited authority, I consider the compromise between the parties,, who are also closely related as a mitigating circumstance and thus reduce the sentence of the appellants. Keeping the peculiar circumstances of this case in view the sentences of the appellants are reduced to the period already undergone. They be released at once if not required in any other case.
H. A. K. Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer