IFTIKHAR AHMAD vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Iftikhar Ahmad, who was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentenced to death by the trial court, with the conviction and sentence subsequently upheld by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a compromise between the accused and the legal heirs of the deceased, entered into without any financial compensation, can be treated as a mitigating circumstance to warrant the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court held that a compromise even without compensation constitutes a valid mitigating circumstance that can be taken into account for reducing a sentence. Consequently, the court converted the petition into an appeal, accepted the prayer, and reduced the appellant's death sentence to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the fines under the relevant sections. The key principle laid down is that a genuine compromise between the parties, regardless of the absence of monetary compensation, serves as a sufficient mitigating factor for sentence reduction in murder cases.
- Can a compromise between the accused and the legal heirs of the deceased be treated as a mitigating circumstance for reducing a sentence of death?
- Is a compromise valid for sentence reduction even if it is made without any financial compensation?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 323, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, ACTCI. C. J.-Iftikhar Ahmad, petitioner was tried for the murder of Khaleeq Ahmad, by an Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, who by his judgment dated 23-7-1978, convicted him under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced him to death with a fine of Rs. 1,000. The High Court dis--missed his appeal and confirmed the death sentence.
The petitioner then filed a petition for Leave to Appeal.
2. The parties, however, compromised the matter. The petitioner (accused) and the deceased are very closely related, the deceased being father---in-law of the petitioner's sister. The heirs of the deceased, namely, his widow and his two grown-up sons appeared before us and submitted that they had compromised the matter and forgiven the accused without receiving any compensation (i.e. Money etc.), in return.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties sentence of death awarded to the petitioner may be reduced.
4. We issued notice to the State in response to which Mr. Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Assistant Advocate- General appeared.
5. We have heard both the learned counsel and considered the question as to whether the compromise can be treated as a mitigating circumstance for reducing the sentence of death to imprisonment for life. The petitioner's counsel relied on Muhammad Bashir v. The State (1).
The learned counsel for the State, however, urged that since nothing had been given by the accused to the heirs of the deceased by way of compensa--tion, compromise in the present case could not be made the basis of reduction of sentence.
We are, however, not inclined to agree with this view. As held in Khurshid Ahmad v. The State (2) a compromise even without compensation is a good ground for reducing the sentence and is a circumstance that can certainly be taken into account for that purpose. As such keeping in view all the circumstances of this case, we convert this petition into appeal and accept the prayer and reduce the sentence of the appellant from death to imprisonment for life. The sentence of fine in this section and sections 452 and 323, P. P. C. Are maintained.
(1) PLD 1982 SC 139(2) 1976 SCMR 193
Cited by 7 cases
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs THE STATE 2008 SCMR 987
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs STATE 2008 PLJ SC 454
- Mst. FATIMA BIBI and 3 others vs MAHMOOD HUSSAIN and 4 others 1998 SCMR 1921
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL AND omens vs THE STATE AND OTHERS 1984 PLD Lahore 196
- LABHA and anothers vs THE STATE 1984 SCMR 1514
- TAJ MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE 1984 P Cr. L J 204
- MUHAMMAD HANIF And Another vs The STATE 1985 SCMR 612