MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs STATE
This matter arises from criminal appeals filed by the appellants challenging their conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, handed down by the trial court. During the pendency of the appeals, applications under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were filed seeking permission to effect a compromise between the accused and the legal heirs of the deceased, including minor legal heirs represented by their real sister as wali, under the Qisas and Diyat framework. The core legal question was whether a compromise could be permitted and accepted on behalf of minor legal heirs through their sister, and whether the conviction should be set aside accordingly. The court held that the compromise applications merit allowance and that the legal heirs having forgiven the accused, the appeals should be allowed based on the compromise. The key principle laid down is that criminal appeals involving compoundable offences like qatl-e-amd can be resolved through a validly executed compromise by legal heirs, leading to acquittal.
- Can a real sister act as wali to enter into a compromise on behalf of minor legal heirs in a murder case?
- Whether criminal appeals against conviction under Section 302 PPC can be disposed of on the basis of a compromise between the parties?
- What is the effect of a valid compromise on the sentence and conviction of appellants under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 345(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 345(6), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 345(4), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. Appellant, Mst. Farzana in Cr. Appeal No, 360/2002, and Appellant, Muhammad Siddique in Cr.
2. Appeal No, 363/2002, were tried by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge Kai.tchi Central in Sessions Case No, 310/1994 (State vs. Muhammad Siddique and Mst. Farzana) for offence under Section 302/34 PPC and were convicted under Section 302 PPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment together with the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. vide judgment dated 26.10.2002.
3. The appellants, in both the appeals, have challenged their above-referred conviction and sentence.
4. These appeals were admitted to regular hearing by this Court on 21.11.2002. During the pendency of these appeals, Appellants have moved applications being under Sections 345(2), 345(6) and 345(4) Cr.P.C., respectively. (M.As. Nos, 689, 690 and 2680 of 2004 in Cr. Appeal No, 360/2002 and M.As. Nos, 686, 687 and 2681 of 2004 in Cr. Appeal No, 363/2002), duly supported with the affidavits of complainant, Sonia Shaukat, brother and daughter of the deceased, respectively, alongwith Proforma for effecting compromise under Qisas & Diyat Ordinance, whereby following prayers have been made on the ground that the legal heirs of deceased have forgiven the above-named accused persons in the name of almighty Allah:--
(i) Permission to enter into compromise;
(ii) Acceptance of compromise;
(iii) Permission to Mst. Sonia to compromise the above matter on behalf of the minor legal heirs of the deceased as wali, being their real sister.
5. I have heard and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the Appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State who . has raised no objection to the grant of all these applications.
6. Upon a query whether the real sister of the minor legal heirs can entered into compromise, learned counsel for the Appellants relied upon the case of Muhammad Hanif vs. The State (1993 P.Cr.L.J.
7. 166). I have gone through the case-law, cited at the bar, perused the record and am of the considered view that these applications merit to be allowed. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in terms of compromise. The appellants are acquitted and shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
8. Cr. Appeals Nos, 360 and 363 of 2004 stand disposed of alongwith listed applications.