MASKEEN ALI Versus MUHAMMAD LATIF
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a revision petition by the High Court, which had upheld the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge reducing the respondents' sentences based on a compromise. The respondents were originally convicted under sections 307, 326, 324, and 148 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by a Magistrate. During the appeal, three of the four injured persons stated they had compromised with the respondents. The Additional Sessions Judge reduced the sentences to the period already undergone while increasing the fines. The core legal question was whether a valid compromise existed despite one injured person not appearing personally. The Supreme Court held that the compromise was validly established by the statements of the other injured family members represented by the head of the family. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, laying down the principle that a partial compromise involving key family members can sufficiently establish a settlement in criminal matters for the purpose of sentence reduction.
- Whether a compromise in a criminal case can be established when one of the injured persons does not personally appear before the court?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the reduction of sentences based on a compromise?
- Whether the head of a family can represent injured family members in effecting a compromise?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 326, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑ The respondents were convicted of offences under sections 307, 326 and 324, read with section 149, and section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer various terms of imprisonment by a Magistrate at Sheikhupura. They filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge. During the course of hearing of the appeal, three out of the four injured persons made a statement that they had entered into a compromise with the respondents and had forgiven them. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that only one of the respondents, namely, Muhammad Latif could be convicted of the offence under section 307; accordingly, he upheld his conviction on this count but acquitted the other respondents of this offence. He maintained the convictions of all the respondents on other counts, that is those under sections 326, 324 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Taking notice of the compromise between the parties, he reduced the sentences of all respondents including Muhammad Latif to the periods of imprisonment already suffered by them but increased the amounts of fines. The complainant party filed a revision petition in the High Court but without any success. It now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition all that has been contended is that there had been no compromise between the parties and the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in reducing the sentences of respondents on this account.
3. It is difficult to accept the assertion that there had been no compromise in view of the clear recital to this effect appearing in the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Four persons were injured during the course of occurrence. No doubt one of them, namely, Mst. Salamat Bibi did not appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge but then the statement made by the other three, namely, Muhammad Siddique, Maskeen and Barkat Bibi were sufficient to establish the factum of compromise. It may be mentioned that Mst. Salamat Bibi was the sister of Muhammad Siddique and resided with him. He was clearly head of the family for Mst. Barkat Bibi was his wife and Maskeen was his son. In the circumstances the failure of Mst. Salamat Bibi to appear in person before the Additional Sessions Judge did not imply that there had been no compromise.
4. Since the sentences of the respondents were reduced consequent upon a compromise between the parties, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court. Leave is refused.
M.I./M‑195/S Petition dismissed.