NAZIR AHMED vs THE STATE
This criminal matter arises from the conviction and sentencing of the petitioner Nazir Ahmad under sections 311 and 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, arising out of F.I.R. No. 177 of 2005. The petitioner sought the suspension of his sentence and release on bail pending appeal, on the grounds that he had served a considerable portion of his imprisonment, that the widow of the deceased had entered into a compromise and forgiven him in the name of Allah Almighty, and that the appeal was unlikely to be heard in the near future. The Lahore High Court heard the arguments, perused the record, and noted that an out-of-court settlement and compromise where the complainant party is no longer willing to prosecute furnishes a good ground for the suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The court held that where parties have forgotten and forgiven the crime, the court cannot compel prosecution. Consequently, the application for suspension of sentence was allowed.
- Whether an out-of-court compromise between the accused and the legal heirs of the deceased constitutes a valid ground for the suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending appeal?
- Can a court compel the complainant party to prosecute a matter when they are no longer willing to do so?
- Does the serving of a considerable period of sentence combined with a compromise warrant the suspension of sentence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, J.---The petitioner Nazir Ahmad was tried by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Lahore, in case F.I.R. No,177/2005 dated 23-4-2005 offence under sections 302, 392 and 412, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Shandara, District Lahore. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore, vide judgment dated 21-2-2009 convicted and sentenced the accused/petitioner under section 311 P.P.C. Read with section 392 P.P.C. To undergo 14 years' R.I. And 10 years R.I.
Respectively. Both the sentences were to run consecutively and the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
Was also awarded to the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ appellant seeks suspension of sentence on the ground that sentence awarded to the petitioner/appellant has served out almost half of the sentence awarded to him. It is further stated that the widow of the deceased has entered into a compromise with the petitioner during the trial and she has forgiven the petitioner in the name of Allah Almighty and that the appeal is not likely to be heard in near future; as such, it is a fit case for suspension of sentence.
3. Learned Addl. Prosecutor General has fully supported the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore and vehemently opposed the suspension of sentence.
4. Arguments heard, record perused.
5. The petitioner has served out almost a considerable period of his sentence in prison. Same time where the compromise is effected, that furnishes good ground for grant of bail in such like cases. In the present case, the widow of the deceased has entered into a compromise with the petitioner and has forgiven the petitioner in the name of Allah Almighty. As narrated in para 33 of the impugned judgment that the complainant had not entered into the witness box to depose against the petitioner. Moreover, the hearing of the appeal is not in sight. Therefore, by relying upon the cases of Abdul Rashid and another v. The State (1999 PCr.LJ 791), Ghulam Ali v. The State and another (1997 SCMR' 1411) and Mukhtar Ahmad and 3 others v. The State (1999 PCr.LJ 1107) wherein it has been held that "if the parties had themselves forgotten and forgiven the crime and had entered into an outside Court settlement, the same could be considered as ground for the grant of bail in the interest of justice and equity and where the complainant party was no longer willing to prosecute the matter any further, Court could not compel it to do so," this application is allowed and the sentences awarded to the petitioner/appellant vide judgment dated 21-2-2009 is suspended. A The petitioner/appellant be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.