THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 4 others
This matter concerns a State appeal against an acquittal order dated 15-3-1992 passed by a Magistrate in Gujranwala, which acquitted the respondents of charges under sections 324 and 337-B of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, read with sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. During the proceedings, the State counsel acknowledged the death of one respondent, causing the appeal to abate against him under section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the State appeal against acquittal should proceed when the complainant and injured witnesses have entered into a compromise with the accused and no longer wish to pursue the matter. The Court held that the complainant and injured witnesses are essential parties whose standpoint is critical. Given the compromise and the compoundable nature of the offences, the Court determined that continuing the appeal would not foster peaceful relations and would reopen healed wounds. Furthermore, the State failed to demonstrate any illegality or perversity in the acquittal order. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the desirability of maintaining harmony between parties in compoundable offences.
- Does a criminal appeal abate upon the death of an accused respondent?
- Can a State appeal against acquittal be dismissed on the basis of a compromise between the complainant and the accused?
- Are the complainant and injured witnesses considered necessary parties in a State appeal against acquittal?
- Section 431, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 324, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance
- Section 337-B, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 417(2-A), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' M. BILAL KHAN, J. ---This is an appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of respondents namely Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Anwar, Akbar Ali and Muhammad Asghar sons of Nawab Din and Ghulam Mustafa son of Muhammad Ashraf.
' According to the learned counsel appearing for the State Muhammad Asghar son of Nawab Din has died which fact has been confirmed by him, as such the appeal to the extent of Muhammad Asghar son of Nawab Din abates within the meanings of section 431 Cr.P.C.
2. The appeal is directed against the order of acquittal dated 15-3-1992 passed by the learned Magistrate section 30 Gujranwala in case F.I.R. No, 70 dated 23-5-1991 under sections 324/337-B Qisas and Diyat Ordinance read with sections 148 and 149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Ghakhar District Gujranwala.
3. The complainant of the said case namely Khurshid Ahmed himself is present along with injured P.Ws. Abdul Razzaq and Jamshed. They have stated that they have effected a compromise with the accused persons and would not like to pursue the appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the State has argued at some length and tried to find faults in the order of acquittal and maintained that in the given facts and circumstances of the case the acquittal order was not sustainable in law. However he submitted that since a compromise, has been effected between the parties therefore he would not seriously prosecute this appeal.
5. Mr. Mohsin Raza, Advocate has filed his power of Attorney on behalf of the complainant and verifies that a compromise has taken place between the parties and that the complainant party did not wish to prosecute this appeal.
6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties at length.
7. It may be relevant to state that when this State appeal had been preferred the right of appeal to the complainant party had not yet been accorded as section 417 (2-A) had not yet been enacted.
It was for this reason that the appeal had been preferred by the State. In my opinion the complainant and the injured witnesses are necessary parties and their standpoint is not only relevant but is absolutely essential in this matter. Since they are not willing to prosecute this appeal, as according to them they have entered into a compromise, therefore, any proceedings in the same would not be conductive to peaceful and harmonious relationship between the parties.
Any further action in this appeal would reopen the healed wounds which will not be desirable. The offences in which the appellants had been convicted are all compoundable.
8. Even otherwise on merits the learned counsel appearing for the State has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity, in the order of acquittal calling for interference by this Court.
' For what has been stated above this appeal stands dismissed.