SUGHRAN BIBI Versus SARWAR BIBI
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a complainant mother against a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside the convictions and sentences of the respondents under sections 304/34 and 452/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an alleged compromise. The prosecution case involved a dispute over drainage water leading to an assault on a pregnant woman who subsequently died from injuries to her abdomen. The defence contended that the deceased accidentally slipped and fell on bricks removed from a gutter. The core legal questions examined by the Supreme Court relate to the validity of a compromise entered into by the estranged husband of the deceased who lacked authority to act on behalf of all legal heirs, whether the conditions for a valid compromise under established precedent were satisfied, and whether the High Court erred in setting aside the entire sentence rather than merely considering sentence reduction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the questions raised required detailed examination regarding the legality of the compromise and the resultant acquittal.
- Whether an estranged husband of a deceased victim possesses the legal authority to enter into a binding criminal compromise on behalf of all legal heirs?
- Can a High Court set aside an entire conviction and sentence on the basis of an invalid or unverified compromise?
- Whether the conditions for a compromise laid down in precedent are duly satisfied when determining a criminal appeal?
- Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH J. ‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a complainant in a murder case against Judgment dated 13‑5‑1985 of the Lahore High Court‑ whereby sentences of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 under sections 304/34 and 452/34, P.P.C. were set aside‑‑Respondent No.4 had earlier been acquitted by the trial Court 2.The prosecution case, as summed up in this petition, is as follows: ‑
"A dispute arose between the petitioner and the accused/ respondents about the drainage water of the latter into the gutter of the petitioner/ complainant. The accused/ respondents assaulted the petitioner, entering into her Kitchen where her daughter Mumtaz Bibi who had pregnancy of advanced stage rescued her. The respondent No.1 raised 'Lalkara' to the effect that Mumtaz Bibi should not also be spared whereupon the respondents Nos.2 to 4 attacked Mumtaz Bibi deceased, beat her with their fists, Shamshad Bibi respondent gave a blow of brick‑bat at the chin of deceased Mumtaz Bibi which also hit her at her abdomen, Irshad Bibi respondent gave a leg blow at the abdomen of Mumtaz Bibi deceased who fell on the ground and succumbed to the injuries at the spot."
3. The defence plea raised by Mst. Sarwar Bibi, respondent, is reproduced below:‑
"My house is opposite to the house of Mst. Sughran Bibi complainant in the same lane. For the last more than 16 years the waste water of my house has been falling in a public 'Gutter' located close to the door of the house of Mst. Sughran Bibi P. W. On the day of the occurrence, my husband had gone to attend his duty. I found the 'Gutter' filled with bricks blocking the flow of the water of my house. I sat to clear the bricks. I had put out a large number of bricks from the 'Gutter' and placed them there. In the meanwhile, Mst. Sughran Bibi P.W. came out of the house because of the bad smell which arose from the 'Gutter'. She held me from my hair in the attempt to prevent me from clearing the 'Gutter'. This attracted Mst. Mumtaz deceased who came running from inside the house. She slipped at the thresh hold of the door and fell on the bricks which I had put out from the 'Gutter' close to the door and breathed her last. The co‑accused who are my school going daughters had not joined the incident at all. The P.Ws are tenants of Mst. Sughran Bibi P.W: and as such, have subscribed to a distorted story. The incident has been witnessed by other neighbours of the locality namely Nadeem Ali, Zahid Ali, Malik Yaqub, Muhammad Ihsan, Yousf Rahim Qureshi and Shamim Ahmad as well as many others. They had not supported version before the police."
4. The trial Court convicted respondents Nos. 1 to 3 under sections 304/34 and. 452/34, P.P.C. and sentenced them accordingly.
5. On appeal by the convicts a learned Judge of the High Court, after writing a judgment of dismissal of appeal, at the end allowed it by setting aside the sentences of the convicts and directing their release. It was on the assumption that the parties had entered into a compromise.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, the mother of the deceased who is also the complainant in the case, has argued that the so‑called compromise in writing submitted by the estranged husband of the deceased, was no compromise at all. Moreover, he had no authority to compromise on behalf of all the heirs of the deceased. He has also argued that the conditions laid down by this Court in case of Muhammad Bashir v. The State P L D 1982 S C 139 were not satisfied; and, that in any case, only the sentence could be reduced on the ground of compromise‑‑the entire sentence could not be set aside as done be the High Court.
7. Questions raised in support of this petition require examination. Leave to appeal is granted against Mst. Sarwar Bibi, Mst. Irshad Bibi and Mst. Shamshad Bibi. The petition against Mst. Shahnaz Bibi has not been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner by way of abundant caution.
8. Bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.20,000 each with two sureties each in like amount shall be issued against the said respondents for appearance in this Court. Warrants will be returnable to the A.C. concerned.
S.Q./S‑130/S Leave granted