Muhammad Nadir vs The State
The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, handed down by the trial court for firing and injuring a prosecution witness. During the hearing of the criminal appeal, the parties filed a compromise application stating they had amicably resolved the matter and that the complainant and injured person had pardoned the appellant in the name of Almighty Allah and waived their right of Qisas and Diyat. A verification report from the trial court confirmed the genuineness of the compromise. Both the Additional Prosecutor General for the State and the complainant's counsel expressed no objection to the acceptance of the compromise. The High Court found the compromise to be genuine, voluntary, and concerning a compoundable offence. Consequently, the court accepted the compromise, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant pursuant to Section 345(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, directing his immediate release unless required in other custody cases.
- Can an offence under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be compounded on the basis of a compromise between the parties?
- What is the effect of a genuine and voluntary compromise between the parties on a criminal conviction?
- Under which provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is an accused acquitted upon the acceptance of a compromise?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 345(6), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The appellant is alleged to have fired and injured PW Ashad with intention to commit his murder , he was booked, challaned, tried, and for offence punishable u/s 324 PPC was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- and in case of default whereof to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad vide his judgment dated 12th August, 2020, which has been impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant Criminal Appeal.
2. During course of hearing of instant Criminal Appeal, the parties compounded the offence and to materialize such compromise they filed compromise application. Such application is supported by the affidavits of complainant Abdul Ghaf far and injured/PW Ashad, whereby they have recorded no objections to acquittal of the appellant by way of compromise by stating therein that they have pardoned him in name of Almighty Allah without fear by waiving their right of Qisas and Diyat.
3. Report furnished by learned trial Court af firms genuineness of compromise arrived at between the parties.
4. It is contended by the learned counse l for the appellant that the parties have entered into compromise at the instance of their nekmards, same to be accepted in the best interest of peace and brotherhood to be prevailed between the parties.
5. The learned A.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have recorded no objection to acceptance of the compromise between the parties.
6. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
7. The offence is compoundable one. The parties have entered into compromise, on intervention of their nekmards, which appears to be true and voluntarily . In these circumstances, the compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. Consequently , the appellant is acquitted of the offence u/s 345(6) Cr.P.C, for which he has been charged, tried and convicted by learned trial court, he is in custody and shall be released forthwith if not required in any other custody case.
8. The instant appeal is disposed of together with the listed application[s].