MUNIR AHMAD and another vs THE STATE
This matter arises from criminal petitions filed by Mumtaz and Munir Ahmed impugning their conviction and sentences under Section 302(b) read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. During the proceedings, the petitioners sought acquittal based on a compromise reached with the legal heirs of the deceased, Gulzar. The Supreme Court directed the Sessions Judge of Jhang to verify the compromise. The Sessions Judge submitted a verified report confirming that the legal heirs had voluntarily compounded the offense. The core legal question concerned the validity and acceptance of the compromise between the convicts and the legal heirs of the deceased in a murder case. The Supreme Court held that the compromise was genuine and voluntary, finding no legal impediment or justification to withhold permission for compounding or to invoke Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Court converted the petitions into appeals, allowed them, set aside the convictions and sentences, and ordered the immediate release of the petitioners.
- Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be set aside on the basis of a compromise between the convicts and the legal heirs of the deceased?
- What is the procedure for verifying a compromise in a murder case before the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
- When can the court refuse permission to compound an offense under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Mumtaz and Munir Ahmed, petitioners are before us through Criminal Petitions Nos.33-L of 2005 and 423-L of 2004 impugning the conviction and punishments recorded against them under section 302(b) of the P.P.C. Read with section 149, of the same Code. During the pendency of these petitions, it was submitted before this Court that the legal heirs of Gulzar deceased had entered into a compromise with both the petitioners namely Mumtaz and Munir Ahmed and it had consequently been prayed that the said two petitioners be acquitted of the said charge. In view of the said stance, the learned Sessions Judge of Jhang was directed to look into the matter of said alleged compromise; verify the factum of the same and then to submit a report to this Court which report dated 26-1-2005 has since been received.
2. The learned Sessions Judge reports that Gulzar deceased was unmarried at the time of occurrence; that his father namely Mali had also died before his murder; that he had been survived by his mother Mst. Sattan, two brothers namely Zulfiqar and Nazir Ahmad and three sisters namely Mst. Allah Jawai, Mst. Fateh Bibi and Mst. Jantan; that he had verified the pedigree-table and had identified the heirs of the deceased on the basis of a report submitted by the Naib Tehsildar of Rabwah and the statement made by the mother of the deceased. The report adds that all the above-named heirs were summoned by the learned Sessions Judge and were examined by him after they had been identified by Syed Zia Hussain Kazmi, Advocate. The statements of the said heirs along with copies of the National Identity Cards accompany the report submitted by the learned Sessions Judge.
3. Having examined the said legal heirs and having considered all other aspects of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge of Jhang was of the view that the compromise in question was genuine and voluntary. We have also examined the statements made by the said heirs of the deceased and affirm the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge on the said issue.
4. Nothing is available on record which could either justify punishment of the two petitioners under section 311, P.P.C. Or which could persuade us to withhold our permission in the matter of compounding of the said offence. Raja Abdur Reiman, A.A.-G. Is present in Court on Court's call and has also been heard.
5. In this view of the matter, delay in the filing of Cr.P.33/L of 2005 is condoned for the reasons stated in the application submitted for the purpose. Cr.P. 423-L of 2004 and Cr.P.33-L of 2005 are converted into appeals and allowed, as a result whereof the conviction and punishments recorded against Munir Ahmed and Mumtaz petitioners-convicts are set aside and they are acquitted of the charge levelled against them on account of compromise reached between the parties. They shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.