MOHAMMAD MITHAL vs The STATE
This criminal appeal concerns a conviction for murder wherein the appellant sought acquittal following a compromise with the legal heirs of the deceased. The core legal question was whether a compromise could be accepted and the appellant acquitted when the 'diyat' (compensation) amount had been paid by co-accused persons rather than the appellant himself, and whether the interests of minor legal heirs were sufficiently protected. The Court held that the compromise was valid and voluntary, noting that the 'diyat' amount corresponding to the minors' shares had been deposited in court and that the minors' mother, acting as their appointed guardian, had consented to the compromise. The Court affirmed that under Shariah principles, the purpose of 'diyat' is to safeguard the interests of the legal heirs, and it is permissible for the compensation to be paid by any of the co-accused. Consequently, the Court allowed the compounding of the offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and acquitted the appellant, finding no impediment to the compromise once the minors' interests were secured.
- Can a compromise in a murder case be accepted if the 'diyat' amount is paid by co-accused rather than the appellant?
- Is a compromise valid where the interests of minor legal heirs are secured by the deposit of their share of 'diyat' in court?
- Does the mother of minor legal heirs have the authority to compound an offence on their behalf after being appointed as their guardian?
- Section 345(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 345(6), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.---The facts of the case are that appellant along with co-accused namely, Bhagio, Bilawal, Umedo, Sheral, Abdul Qayoom, Qadir Bux and two unidentified persons armed with deadly weapons took part in an episode, in which the brother of complainant namely, Muhammad Thaheem expired due to firearm injuries. The allegation against the appellant and his associates is that they are responsible for the said episode of firing upon deceased.
2. After trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and pay compensation of Rs.100,000/- to le legal heirs of deceased and in case of failure to make payment of compensation to undergo S.I for six months more.
3. During pendency of the appeal, the appellant has entered into compromise with legal heirs of deceased and applications under Sections 345(5) & 345(6), Cr.P.C. were moved; so also an application for appointment of Guardian/Wali of minor legal heirs. Mst. Sat Bhai, the mother of minors namely, Usama, Mujeeb Rehman and baby Nehala Khatoon was appointed as guardian/ wali. The learned Sessions Judge after conducting enquiry has sent report dated 15.4.2016 mentioning therein that all the major legal heirs namely Mir Hassan, Mst. Sat Bhai, Abdul Sattar, Wali Muhammad, Din Muhammad and Abdul Karim sworn their affidavits and recorded statements, stating therein that they have forgiven appellant in the name of Almighty Allah and have waived right of Qisas and Diyat and amount to the extent of share of above minor legal heirs has already been deposited in the Court by acquitted accused Umedo and Sheral.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during pendency of appeal a question arose that whether the amount of Badl-e-Sulh "diyat" deposited by the acquitted accused is sufficient for the appellant or not. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant that as the amount has already been paid by the acquitted accused, one of whom is the brother of the present appellant, therefore, he is not required to pay any additional amount in respect of compromise. According to him, the major legal heirs of deceased have entered into compromise in the name of Almighty Allah and have forgiven Qisas and Diyat, while interest of the minor legal heirs has been safeguarded by depositing the share upto to their extent with the trial Court.
5. The learned Prosecutor verified that the share of the minors is deposited.
6. I have gone through the report of learned Sessions Judge, through which it appears that a compromise application was filed before the learned Sessions Judge and after enquiry the same was allowed and the amount of share of the minors had been deposited in the Court. The mother of minors has also forgiven the accused persons on her behalf as well as on behalf of her minor children, for whom she is appointed as guardian/wali by the trial Court. It is well settled law that in such like cases, the interest of minors is safeguarded on the basis of their share in the "diyat" amount, which is a prescribed one. Under "Shariah", if "diyat" is required to be paid by the accused persons, then the same is charged by distributing the same on all the accused persons, who had taken part in the murder of deceased. It is also permissible that the amount of "dtyat" be paid by any one of the murderer/convictee, as the purpose, of "Shartah" is to safeguard the interest of legal heirs of the deceased. In the instant matter, the share of minors calculated on the basis of "diyat" amount has already been deposited, therefore, the same will suffice for the entire compromise. As the interest of minors has already been safe guarded, therefore, there will be no impediment to allow the compromise with the appellant.
7. After going through enquiry report, I am satisfied that the compromise is without any duress, pressure and coercion and the same is volunteer in nature, therefore, application under section 345(5), Cr.P.C. stands allowed and parties are permitted to compound the offence and as a result thereof, the application under section 345(6), Cr.P.C. is allowed. The appellant in view thereof, is acquitted of the offence, he is present on bail, his bail stands cancelled and surety discharged.
8. The appeal in terms of above stands disposed of.