MUHAMMAD ANWAR and another vs THE STATE
The petitioners challenged the dismissal of their application under section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking acquittal based on a compromise in a murder trial under sections 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was accused of murdering his sister on the plea of grave and sudden provocation or family honor (Ghairat). The trial court had refused the compromise application. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in refusing the compromise and acquittal in a heinous murder case involving a minor legal heir and a crime committed in the name of family honor. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court rightly refused the application as the offense under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 carries a punishment of not less than ten years following the latest amendment, and the act was heinous in nature. The court laid down the principle that courts may decline compromise applications in heinous offenses involving family honor where the trial court remains unsatisfied with the circumstances of the compromise.
- Whether a trial court is justified in refusing an application for acquittal based on a compromise in a murder case involving family honor?
- Can the High Court interfere in its revisional jurisdiction with a trial court's refusal to accept a compromise under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does an offense under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 permit automatic acquittal upon a compromise when the crime is heinous in nature?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM- UZ-ZAMAN.-The petitioner is facing trial in case F.I.R. No,340/05 for the offence under sections 302/34 P.P.C registered at Police Station, Ghulam Muhammad. The application of the petitioner under section 345, Cr.P.C. Seeking acquittal from the charge on the basis of compromise was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 25-1-2006 and through this Criminal Revision the legality of the said order has been challenged on the grounds that Mst. Kaniz Mai. (deceased) had left only one legal heir i.e Farhan (son), whereas her husband Ghulam Abbas had already divorced her and now he i$ the legal guardian of the said minor son of the deceased.
Statedly, Ghulam Abbas had compromised with the petitioner on behalf of the said minor son of the deceased while forgiving him in the name of Almighty Allah and in the circumstances the learned trial Court has erroneously refused the application filed under section 345, Cr.P.C.
2. The bare perusal of the impugned order as well as data available on the record reveals that the petitioner who is the real brother of Mst. Keniz Mai (deceased) had committed her murder on the plea of Ghairat/family honour and under section 302 P.P.C by virtue of latest amendment the punishment fixed by the Statute is not less than ten years. The act committed by the petitioner is heipous in nature and in the circumstance in my view the learned trial Court has rightly refused the application under Section 345, Cr. P.C being not satisfied. Even otherwise, the learned counsel is not in a position to point out any illegality in the impugned orders warranting interference of this Court in its revisipnal jurisdiction. The instant Criminal Revision having no merits stands dismissed.
Revision .