ABDUL HAQUE Versus STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition filed by Abdul Haque and others, who were convicted under section 325 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing injury to the complainant, Muhammad Nawaz, and sentenced to varying terms of rigorous imprisonment. Their convictions and sentences were upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, and subsequently by the High Court in a revision petition. Upon approaching the Supreme Court, the petitioners submitted that a compromise had been reached between the parties. The complainant appeared in person, confirmed the compromise, and stated it was achieved through the intervention of respectable local persons. The core legal question concerned the effect of a compromise between the parties in a criminal matter. The Supreme Court accepted the compromise, converted the petition into an appeal, accepted the appeal on the basis of the compromise, and acquitted the petitioners while directing their immediate release.
- Can a criminal petition be accepted on the basis of a compromise between the parties?
- Whether an appellate court can acquit petitioners based on a confirmed compromise?
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J .‑Abdul Haque, Abdul Majid and Abdul Rafique sons of the Khuda Bakhsh were convicted of an offence under section 325,/34, P. P. C. for causing injury to Muhammad Nawaz. Abdul Haque was sentenced to one year's R. I. while Majid and Rafi were sentenced to three months' R. I. each. Their appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan and their revision petition before the High Court met the same fate. They have therefore approached this Court.
2. On the last date of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties have compromised and referred us to an affidavit sworn by Mohammad Nawaz complainant to that effect which is attached at page 23 of the paper‑book. Since Mohammad Nawaz complainant was not present in person, the case was adjourned and the sentences of the accused were suspended. The matter has again come up today. Mohammad Nawaz, complainant, the victim of the assault is present in person. He has confirmed that he had compromised the matter with the accused‑petitioners as a result of the intervention of some respectable .persons of the area.
3. Having regard to the circumstances of this case and the fact that out of the sentences awarded the petitioners have undergone a part of the sentences, we accept the compromise between the parties, convert this petition into an appeal and accept the same on the basis of the compromise between the parties and acquit the petitioners. They shall be released for with unless required in some other case.
Order accordingly.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others vs THE STATE 1989 P Cr. L J 2381
- TALEH MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE 1983 P Cr. L J 910