SHAHBAZ MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE
This criminal revision petition arose from an order of the learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran, directing execution against the movable and immovable property of the petitioner (father) to recover the amount of Diyat awarded against his late minor son. The minor convict was tried under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, and sentenced to pay Diyat under Section 308 read with Section 306, PPC, payable either from his property or by his parents. Following the minor's death in jail, his appeal abated, prompting the deceased's legal heirs to seek execution of the Diyat against the parents. The petitioner contended that criminal liability could not be shifted onto him, while the respondent relied on Section 331, PPC. The High Court held that the trial court was competent under the law to direct payment of Diyat by the minor convict or any person determined by it, including the parents. Observing that the petitioner may seek any appropriate legal remedy regarding the underlying legal implications of the sentence, the Court dismissed the criminal revision.
- Is a trial court competent to order that the Diyat imposed on a minor convict be paid by his parents?
- Can an execution process be issued against the parents of a deceased minor convict to recover Diyat determined under the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 306, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 308, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 331, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000
' Petitioner is the father of Muhammad Iqbal. This Muhammad Iqbal along with his brother Mumtaz Ahmad, Shahbaz petitioner and Muhammad Nasir were accused of commission of offences under section 302 P.P.0 vide a case F.I.R No,411 dated 7-12-2002 at P.S. Sadar Duniyapur. The said Muhammad Iqbal and Mumtaz Ahmed, sons of the petitioner, were tried under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, while the petitioner and Muhammad Nasir were separately tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran. Vide judgment dated 30-3-2004, the learned Sessions Judge/Judge, Juvenile Court, Lodhran, while acquitting Mumtaz-co-accused, convicted and sentenced Iqbal as under:--
(i) For offence under section 308 P.P.0 read with section 306 P.P.0 to Diyat of Rs,2,90,372 to be paid either from his property or by his parents;
(ii) Under second proviso to undergo R.I. For fourteen years as Tazeer; and
(iii) To pay Rs,50,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased as contemplated by section 544-A, Cr.P.C., in default whereof to further undergo R.I. For six months.
' In the second trial, Shahbaz-petitioner was acquitted, while his co-accused Nasir was convicted and sentenced under section 302 (b)/34 P.P.C. To imprisonment for life and to pay compensation amounting to Rs,50,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased as enjoined by section 544-A, Cr.P.0 or in default in payment thereof to further suffer R.I. For six months.
2. Feeling aggrieved by their afore-mentioned convictions and sentences, Iqbal filed Criminal Appeal No,225 of 2004, while Nasir preferred Criminal Appeal No,224 of 2004.
3. Criminal Appeal No, 225 of 2004 came up before this Court on 24-6-2004, when the learned counsel for the said appellant stated that the appeal stands abated due to the death of the appellant in jail. It was accordingly disposed of. However, the appeal filed by Nasir is still pending.
4. The legal heirs of the deceased person filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran, stating that said Muhammad Iqbal has died and the appeal has abated and that the amount of Diyat be directed to be paid by the parents of the said convict as ordered by the learned trial Court. This application has been allowed by the learned Sessions Judge on 23-12-2004 and he has issued execution process against the movable and immovable property of the said convict, including the petitioner.
5. Sardar Mahboob, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner cannot be made to pay the amount of Diyat, as the liability, which is criminal in nature, cannot be shifted to his client, more so when the minor-convict has not left any property. He has also tried to argue that the criminal appeal was disposed of wrongly, as it could not have abated, so far as the amounts payable under the judgment of the trial Court are concerned. The learned A.A.-G. And learned counsel for Nazir Ahmad, stated to be one of the legal heirs of the deceased, have drawn my attention to section 331, P.P.C. To urge that the learned trial Court was competent to direct payment of Diyat by any person determined by it and the parents, who are the only Walis of the deceased convict, are liable to pay the same.
6. I have given some thought to the respective contention of the learned counsel and the learned law officer. To my mind, the learned trial Court was competent to direct payment of Diyat by a minor convict or any person determind; and competently determined that the parents of the minor-convict shall pay the Diyat. The learned Sessions Judge has only ordered execution of the said directive of the learned trial Court.
7. However, I find that for all practical purposes, the Diyat, which was imposed in lieu of Qisas, constitutes a sentence against the petitioner-father, and his wife-the mother of the said deceased minor-convict. However, the legal implications and the ultimate effect cannot be determind in these limited proceedings. The petitioner may adopt and resort to such remedy as is available to him under the law and as he may be advised. With these observations, the criminal revision is dismissed.