Irfan Ali vs The State
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Irfan Ali, handed down by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the Qatl-e-amd of Noor Muhammad, along with a reference for confirmation of the death sentence. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed applications seeking acquittal based on a compromise reached with the legal heirs of the deceased. Upon inquiry, the trial court verified that all adult legal heirs, the widow, and the Wali of the minor legal heir had voluntarily pardoned the appellant by waiving their rights of Qisas and Diyat, with the minor's share of Diyat duly deposited in court. The State raised no objection. The High Court accepted the compromise as genuine, voluntary, and in the interest of peace, thereby acquitting the appellant pursuant to Section 345(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and disposing of the murder reference accordingly.
- Can an offence under Section 302 PPC be compounded with the legal heirs of the deceased?
- What is the procedure for accepting a compromise involving a minor legal heir in a murder case?
- Whether an appellate court can acquit a convicted person based on a compromise reached during the hearing of an appeal?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 374, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 345(6), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Irshad Ali Shah J. It is alleged that the appellant and co-accused Adnan in furtherance of their comm on intention committed Qatl-e-amd of Noor Muhammad by causing him fire shot injures, for that they were booked and reported upon by the police.
2. On conclusion of trial, co-accused Adnan was acquitted while appellant Irfan Ali was convicted for offence punishable u/s 302(b) PPC and was awarded death penalty with compensation of five lac payable to the legal heirs of the said deceased, in default whereof to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months by learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge / MCTC, Nawabshah vide his judgment dated 20.03.2020, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant appeal. Learned trial Court has also made a reference in terms of section 374 Cr .P.C for confirmation of death sentence to the appellant.
3. During course of hearing of instant appeal, the appellant filed applications for permission to compound the offence with the complainant party and for his acquittal by way of compromise.
4. On enquiry based on report of Mukhtiarkar it was reported by learned trial Court that deceased Noor Muhammad on his death was survived by the following legal heirs; Sr.No. Name of legal heir Relationship with deceased Age
01. Mst. Irum wd/o deceased Noor Muhammad Widow -
02. Ms. Minahil Daughter 05 years
03. Muhammad Yousif Brother 49 years
02. Sajjad Hussain Brother 48 years
03. Babar Hussain Brother 42 years
04. Mudasir Hussain Brother 32 years
5. Mst. Irum was not made a party to compromise application, she on enquiry came before learned trial Court and recorded no objection to acquittal of the appellant by stating that she has pardoned the appellant by waiving her right of Qisas and Diyat against him.
6. Baby Minahil, the minor legal heir of the deceased through her "Wali" (Muhammad Yousif) was fair enough to say that she has waived the right of "Qisas" against the appellant while "Diyat" money as per her share which comes to be Rs.1,388,677/-, the appellant has deposited for her with the Accountant of this Court, which is invested in some profitable scheme to be encashed by her on attending the majority .
7. The adult legal heirs of the deceased have also pardoned the appellant by waiving their right of Qisas and Diyat against him, which is evident of their statements recorded by learned trial Court on inquiry .
8. Whatever is stated by the complainant, legal heirs of the deceased and "Wali" of minor finds support from their affidavits, which they have filed alongwith the instant applications.
9. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the parties have compounded the offence on intervention of their Nekmards, without fear or favour and it is true and voluntarily . By contending so, he sought for acquittal of the appellant by way of compromise.
10. Learned D.P .G for the State has recorded no objection to the acquittal of the appellant by way of compromise.
11. We have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
12. The compromise which is arrived at between the parties is appearing to be true and voluntarily , it apparently has been affected by the parties on at the intervention of their Nekmards, it is appe aring to be without any coercion or compulsion, it has not been objected by any one. It is therefore, accepted in the best interest of the peace and brotherhood to be prevailed between the parties.
13. Consequently , the appellant is acquitted of the offence for which he was charged, tried and conviction by learned trial Court, in terms of compromise by resorting to provision of section 345(6) Cr.PC. He shall be released forthwith, if is not required in any other custody case.
14. The instant appeal and reference together with the listed application[s] are disposed of accordingly .