ABBAS ALI vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, whereby the appellant Abbas Ali was convicted under section 302(c) read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment along with compensation under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the appellant was entitled to acquittal on the basis of parity of treatment with his co-accused whose appeal had already been allowed and who had been acquitted. The Court held that since the case of the appellant was indistinguishable from that of his co-accused who had already been acquitted, the appellant was equally entitled to the same relief. The key principle laid down is that parity in criminal cases must be maintained, and an accused person whose case is identical to that of an acquitted co-accused is entitled to the benefit of acquittal.
- Whether an appellant is entitled to acquittal on the basis of parity when the case of the co-accused has already been accepted and the co-accused has been acquitted?
- Is a compromise between the legal heirs of the deceased and the accused acceptable when the accused has not deposited the amount of Diyat falling in the share of minor children?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 460, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAMUZ-ZAMAN, J.---Appellant Abbas Ali along with two others namely Muhammad Boota and Rehmat Ali was tried in case F.I.R. No,9/1995, dated 18-1-1995 registered under sections 302/460, P.P.C. At Police Station, Sharaqpur Sharif by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura who vide judgment, dated 26-9-2000 convicted the appellant under section 302(c) read with section 34, P.P.C. And sentenced him to undergo for ten years' R.I. Appellant was also directed to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased as required under section 544-A, Cr.P.C., or in default whereof to further undergo two months' S.I. Appellant was also given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment appellant has filed the instant appeal.
3. Appeal of co-accused of the appellant namely Muhammad Boota i.e, Criminal Appeal No,1545 of 2000 has already been admitted vide judgment, dated 6-12-2001. Case of appellant is not distinguishable from that of his co-accused Muhammad Boota. Accordingly appellant is also entitled for the same relief. Even otherwise at the adult legal heirs of Muhammad Ashraf deceased have forgiven the appellant in the name of Allah Almighty and they have no objection if this appeal is allowed. The said compromise is not acceptable because appellant has not deposited the amount of Diyat falling in the share of two minor children of the deceased. Be that as it may, since co-accused of the appellant has been acquitted from the case and case of appellant is not distinguishable from that of his co-accused, this appeal is also allowed, conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside. He shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other criminal case.