Muhammad Boota vs The State
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a complaint case. During the pendency of the appeal, an application for acquittal based on a compromise between the parties was filed under Section 345 and Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned the validity and implementation of the compromise in a murder case involving adult and minor legal heirs, specifically regarding the waiver of Qisas and Diyat and the safeguarding of the minor's share. The Lahore High Court accepted the compromise after verifying its genuineness through a judicial report and ensuring the minor's interest was protected by the transfer of immovable property in accordance with Section 310 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court laid down that a compromise in a qatl-e-amd case can be acted upon and result in acquittal provided the legal heirs genuinely waive their rights, and the financial and proprietary interests of any minor legal heirs are duly safeguarded and secured.
- Whether an appellant convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code can be acquitted on the basis of a compromise during the pendency of the appeal?
- How are the interests of a minor legal heir safeguarded when a compromise involving Qisas and Diyat is presented before the court?
- What procedure must the court follow to verify the genuineness of a compromise reached between the parties in a criminal case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 310, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
JUDGMENT M. BILAL KHAN, J. Soba, Muhammad Boota sons of Sher Muhammad, Muhammad Boota son of Yaqoob, Rehmat Ali son of Nazir, Sher Muhammad son of Nawab Ali were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura in a complaint case under Sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C, filed by Mst. Haleeman Bibi, widow of Muhammad Abbas deceased. The learned Trial Judge by virtue of his judgment dated 20.12.2002 found Muhammad Boota son of Sher Muhammad guilty of the charge, convicted him under Section 302(b), P.P.C, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with further direction to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased as . Compensation under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C, or in default of payment thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The said learned Judge, however, acquitted Soba, Muhammad Boota son of Yaqoob and Rehmat Ali son of Nazir, by giving them the benefit of doubt.
2. Muhammad Boota son of Sher Muhammad, the convict/appellant by filing the instant appeal has called in question conviction and sentence awarded to him through the impugned judgment.
During pendency of the appeal, an application under Section 345. Cr.P.C, read with Section 561-A, Cr.P.C, bearing Crl. Misc. No. 1007/M of 2005 was filed on behalf of the appellant seeking his acquittal on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
3. The learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura was asked to submit a report with regard to the genuineness of the compromise arrived at between the parties, who entrusted the matter to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for doing the needful. The said learned Additional Sessions Judge after completing all formalities submitted his report. A perusal thereof reveals that Muhammad Abbas deceased was survived by Mst. Haleeman Bibi (widow), Shahbaz Ali, Arbaz Ali (minor) sons Mst. Nazia Bibi and Mst. Najma Bibi, daughters. The learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded statements of Mst. Haleeman Bibi, Shahbaz Ali, Mst. Nazia Bibi and Mst. Najma Bibi, wherein they stated that they have entered into compromise with the appellant in the name of Almighty Allah and have waived their right of Qisas and Diyat. They further stated that they have no objection if the, appellants are acquitted of the charge.
As regards share of Diyat of the minor, namely, Arbaz Ali, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record a certified extract from the revenue record showing transfer of land measuring 4 marlas valuing Rs. 80,000/- in the name of Arbaz Ali by the appellant, which has duly been mutated in his name.
4. After going through the report submitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, I am satisfied with regard to the genuineness and correctness of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
Insofar as the interest of the minor legal heir of the deceased is concerned, ;t has been observed that in view of the provisions of Section 310, P.P.C:, the same has been sufficiently safeguarded by transfer of the parcel of land in his favour. However, the office is directed to inform the Tehsildar concerned to make an endorsement against the afore-mentioned mutation that the property to the extent of the minor's share shall not be transferred in any way by anyone acting on his behalf till he attains majority. A report to this effect shall also be made in the Roznamcha Waqiati. A copy of the endorsement made and copy of the Roznamcha Waqiati shall be transmitted to this Court through Deputy Registrar (Judl.), which shall be made part of the judicial file.
5. In view of above situation, I accept this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant and acquit him of the charge. He is directed to be released from jail forthwith if not required in any other case. Crl. Misc. No. 1007/M of 2005 also stands disposed of.