ABDUL RAZZAQ alias KARIM KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM CHAUDHRY, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, LAHORE and others
This criminal revision petition challenges an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, which dismissed an application for compromise under Section 345(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, read with Section 338-E, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was originally convicted under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but on appeal, the High Court converted the conviction to Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, finding the petitioner acted under grave and sudden provocation. The trial court subsequently dismissed the compromise application, erroneously characterizing the incident as 'Karokari' and 'Ghairat' and citing legal provisions that were not yet in force at the time of the occurrence. The High Court accepted the revision petition, setting aside the trial court's order. The Court held that the trial court's reasoning was legally flawed because the relevant amendment to Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, post-dated the occurrence, and the High Court had already conclusively determined the nature of the offense as one involving grave and sudden provocation, thereby validating the compromise between the parties.
- Can a trial court refuse to accept a compromise in a criminal case where the appellate court has already determined the conviction falls under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does an amendment to the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply retrospectively to an occurrence that took place before the amendment was enacted?
- Is a finding of 'grave and sudden provocation' by an appellate court binding on a trial court considering a subsequent compromise application?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 338-E, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 345(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, C.J.---As it is a short matter so notice is issued to learned D.P.G for today. I am going to dispose of main criminal revision today and along with it an application for bail before arrest has been filed but learned counsel does not press the same in view of the order, which is going to be passed in the main revision petition. #TBS PCr.LJ #TBE
2. The background of this case is that petitioner was tried in case F.I.R No,361 of 2004 dated 16-10- 2004 registered with Police Station Burki, Lahore and was convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide judgment dated 30-9-2006 to undergo Imprisonment for life on two counts under section 302 (b), P.P.C. With further direction to pay Rs,100,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of Mumtaz Ali deceased or in default six months' SI. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he filed Criminal Appeal No,1536-2006 before this court in which his conviction under section 302(b), P.P.C. On two counts was set aside and he was awarded seven years' R.I. Under section 302(c), P.P.C. On two counts vide judgment dated 1-4-2010. As he was on bail at the time of hearing of appeal, so he was taken into custody by the relevant authorities on the order of this court in order to serve out the remaining sentence, thereafter, legal heirs of both the deceased have entered into compromise with the petitioner and he filed an application under section 345 (2), Cr.P.C. Read with section 338 (E), P.P.C. Before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, who vide impugned order dated 3-6-2010 dismissed the same.
3. In support of this revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that occurrence had taken place on 15-10-2004 in the house of the petitioner in the midnight and he not only killed his daughter but also her paramour; that he was tried by the learned trial Court and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life under section 302 (b), P.P.C. On two counts on 30- 9-2006, thereafter, he filed Criminal Appeal No,1536 of 2006 before this court in which it was held that he acted under grave and sudden provocation and his sentence was converted from section 302 (b), P.P.C. To section 302(c), P.P.C. On two counts, thereafter, legal heirs of both the deceased have entered into compromise with the petitioner and he submitted an application under section 345(2), Cr.P.C. Read with section 338(E), P.P.C. Before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, who vide impugned order dated 3-6-2010 dismissed the same with the observation that it was not a case of grave and sudden provocation but it is a case of "Karokari" and "Ghairat". Learned counsel submits that amendment in section 302(c), P.P.C. Came on the statute book on 10-1-2005 while the occurrence in this case had taken place on 15-10-2004 so the reasons given by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore for the dismissal of application of the petitioner are totally illegal and against the law.
4. Learned D.P.G concedes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the occurrence had taken place on 15-10-2004 while the amendment in section 302 (c), P.P.C. Came on the statute book on 10-1-2005 so the findings of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore that it was case of "Karokari" and "Ghairat" are totally wrong and moreover, even this court had held that petitioner has acted under grave and sudden provocation.
5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the judgment of learned trial Court, the judgment passed by this court in an appeal and the impugned order, which has been challenged before this court, this revision petition is accepted and order impugned dated 3- 6-2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore is set aside and the compromise arrived at between the parties is hereby accepted.