AYAZ BAIG vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a condemned prisoner against a High Court judgment that refused to accept a compromise in a murder case. The core legal question is whether a compromise, submitted long after the conviction and the death of the deceased's parents, and following the widow's remarriage, can be considered genuine and legally acceptable. The Supreme Court held that the compromise lacked genuineness, noting that the widow had remarried and lost affinity with the deceased, and that the deceased's surviving siblings, who were not original legal heirs but were stakeholders in the family harmony, had not consented to the compromise. The Court affirmed that under the law, the genuineness of a compromise is a sine qua non for its acceptance, particularly in cases involving Tazir punishments. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the lower courts' decisions to disallow the compromise due to its questionable nature and lack of consensus among the affected family members.
- Is the genuineness of a compromise a prerequisite for its acceptance by the court in Tazir cases?
- Can a compromise in a murder case be accepted if the primary legal heirs are deceased and the surviving widow has remarried?
- Does the lack of consent from the deceased's siblings affect the court's assessment of the genuineness of a compromise?
- Section 338-E, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, J.--Ayaz Baig, a condemned prisoner seeks leave to appeal from the judgment dated 16.5.2007 of learned Lahore High Court, whereby, compromise in the concerned murder case was denied to him, for not being genuine.
2. The occurrence having taken place in the year 1992, the petitioner was awarded death sentence on 12.9.1994. The conviction as well as the sentence was upheld by this Court in Criminal Petition No, 147-L of 1998 vide judgment dated 19.4.2000.
3. The deceased Arif, having died issueless, was survived by Imam Din-father, Mst. Ghulam Fatima mother and Abida, the widow. The father and mother died in the year 1995 and 2002 respectively while the widow Abida contracted second marriage with one Khalid Javed in the year 1994. Two years after the judgment of this Court, the convict has filed compromise at a point of time when the father and mother .were already dead and the widow had contracted second marriage in 1994, -loosing all relationship and affinity with her previous husband. It was thus easy to win-over or purchase-over the widow. The compromise does not seem to be genuine for the reason.
4. No doubt, at the time of death, the deceased being issueless and the father being alive, his seven brothers and a sister could not be the legal heirs but now, at a belated stage, they cannot be ignored when the question comes to the genuineness of compromise and when they all are most likely to nurse grudge against the convict. They have not agreed to the instant compromise, which agreement is necessary for the future harmony between the families. With reference to Section 338-E PPC read with Section 345 Cr.P.0 and in the light of our judgment in Sh. Muhammad Aslam v.
Shaukat Ali (1997 SCM R 1307), the genuineness has to, be the sine qua non of a compromise which may or may not be accepted by the Court, in the circumstances and in cases of punishment as Tazir.
5. Having had regard to the instant background, we are of the view that the learned trial Court as well as the learned High Court have rightly disallowed the compromise being not genuine. The petition being merit-less, is hereby dismissed and leave declined.