SHER DIL vs THE STATE and another
This matter concerns an appeal against a conviction under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant's counsel contends that the conviction is erroneous, arguing that the facts do not support a charge of robbery resulting in death, but rather suggest liability for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which is a compoundable offence. The appellant asserts that the parties have reached a compromise to resolve their disputes. However, the Court observes that no compromise deed is currently available on the record. While counsel claims the document was submitted to the office, it has not yet been placed before the bench. Consequently, the Court adjourns the proceedings to allow the office to annex the compromise deed to the case papers. The Court further clarifies that the legal heirs of the appellant, who were present, are not required to attend the subsequent hearing.
- Can a conviction under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be challenged on the basis that the offence committed was actually murder under Section 302?
- Is a compromise deed required to be on the record for the court to consider a settlement in a criminal appeal?
- Section 396, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court for the appellant says that the parties have patched up their disputes and have entered into a compromise. He further submits that the appellant has been wrongly convicted under section 396, P.P.C., as in view of the facts of the case he could not have been guilty under section 396, P.P.C. Or for the offence of robbery but could be held liable only for causing death and would be held guilty of murder under section 302, P.P.C.
Which is a compoundable offence. However, there is no compromise deed on record. It is also noted that on 23-12-2005 this Court had directed the appellant to provide copies of statements of the witnesses. Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court says that the compromise deed has been provided in the office but the same has not yet been put up before us.
2. Adjourned to enable the office to annex the compromise deed with the paper. Legal heirs of the appellant who are present in Court today are not required to appear on the next date of hearing.