Rehmat Ali vs The State
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nankana Sahib. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant sought acquittal based on a compromise reached with the legal heirs of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the court could accept a compromise in a murder case and acquit the appellant accordingly. Upon verifying the genuineness of the compromise through a report from the Sessions Judge, which confirmed the agreement was voluntary and free from coercion, the High Court accepted the compromise. The Court held that where a compromise is genuine and reached for mutual harmony, it should be accepted in accordance with established legal principles. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The Court further directed that if the untraced legal heirs of the deceased are later located, they must be paid their respective shares of the Diyat amount.
- Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be set aside on the basis of a compromise between the convict and the legal heirs of the deceased?
- Is a compromise in a murder case valid if some legal heirs of the deceased remain untraced?
- What is the procedure for handling the Diyat amount when certain legal heirs of the deceased are missing at the time of a compromise?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
KH. MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.3.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nankana Sahib, whereby, after having .Tried the appellant was convicted under section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to imprisonment of for life with a further direction to pay an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased in default whereof to further undergo SI for six- months as provided under section 544-A, Cr.P.C, and benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C, was extended to him.
2. During the pendency of the titled appeal, appellant filed Crl. Misc No. 417-M/06 for acquittal on the basis of compromise, whereupon, report was called from the learned Sessions Judge Nankana Sahib regarding genuineness of the compromise, who, vide letter No. 5222, dated 1.6.2006, reported as under:-- "....... Statements of Mst. Zohran Bibi (mother), Mst. Khurshid Bibi (widow), Muhammad Ramzan (brother), Mst. Sairan Bibi and Mst. Safia Bibi (Sisters) have been recorded whereas Hidayat brother of the deceased and Mst. Seeman Bibi sister of the deceased are missing and traceable for the last many years.................. It is found that the compromise is genuine without any coercion and admitted by the heirs "
3. learned counsel for the State, after having gone through the report of the learned Sessions Judge, submits that the State has no objection to the acceptance of the compromise.
4. After having gone through the report of the learned Sessions Judge Nankana Sahib and the statements annexed therewith it appears that the compromise has arrived at between the parties for mutual harmony. This Court seems no reason not to accept the same as-it appears that the same is genuine and without any coercion coupled with the fact that it is according to the settled principles of the superior Courts of the country including the apex Court and seems no reason either to convict the appellant under section 311, PPC. In this regard reliance is placed on Ali Khan Vs. The State (2006 SCM R 1074 and Muhammad Iqbal Vs. Nawaz and another (2006 SCM R 1056).
However, it is observed that in ease both the untraced legal heirs of the deceased, namely, Hidayat (brother) and Seeman Bibi (sister) of the deceased, who are missing for the last so many years, are traced and are made available then they shall be paid their share of the Diyat amount. Resultantly, this compromise is accepted, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside, the appellant is acquitted from the case and he is directed to the released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.