ABDUL RASHID Versus STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioners for murder and house trespass under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether a compromise between closely related parties can serve as an extenuating circumstance to reduce a death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a genuine compromise conducive to peaceful coexistence constitutes an extenuating circumstance warranting the reduction of the death penalty to imprisonment for life. The key principle laid down is that an out-of-court compromise between parties who are closely related can be considered by the court as a mitigating factor in sentencing for capital offences.
- Can an out-of-court compromise between related parties be considered an extenuating circumstance to reduce a death sentence?
- Whether the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be granted for counting under-trial custody towards the sentence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, ACTG. C.J. ‑‑The facts giving rise to this petition for leave to appeal are briefly that Abdul Rashid, Mohammad Shafique, Mohammad Rafique and Mohammad Latif were tried for the murder of Allah Ditta son of Mst.Salim Bibi complainant. Vide its judgment dated 19th January, 1984 the trial Court convicted all of them under sections 302/34, P.P.C., and sentenced Abdul Rashid, Mohammad Shafique and Mohammad Rafique petitioners to death; and Mohammad Latif petitioner to imprisonment for life. They were also sentenced to fine of Rs.2,000 each under the aforesaid section. Mohammad Rafique petitioner was also sentenced to one year's R.I. under section 452, P.P.C. They filed an appeal before the Lahore High Court, Lahore which vide the impugned judgment dated 11th April, 1987 maintained the conviction of all the accused petitioners; confirmed the sentence of death awarded to Abdul Rashid petitioner, but reduced the sentence of Mohammad Shafique and Mohammad Rafique from death to that of imprisonment for life. It however maintained their sentence of fine and also maintained the conviction and sentence of Mohammad Latif petitioner. The conviction and sentence awarded to Mohammad Rafique petitioner under section 452, P.P.C. was also maintained. Feeling aggrieved all of them have filed the present petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the parties) who are closely related to each other have reached a compromise out of the Court with a view to be able to live peacefully in future. We issued a notice to the Advocate‑General and after hearing learned counsel for both sides we convert the petition into an appeal and proceed to dispose it of as such.
3. We have gone through the compromise deed and have also personally questioned the heirs of the deceased and are satisfied that the terms of the compromise are such as would be conducive to a peaceful co‑existence of the parties from now onwards. Therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of this case we consider the compromise between the parties to be an extenuating circumstance entitling Abdul Rashid appellant to a lesser penalty under section 302, P.P.C.
4. As such we allow the appeal partly and reduce the sentence of Abdul Rashid appellant, under section 302/34, P.P.C., from death to that of imprisonment for life. The appeal of the remaining appellants, namely, Mohammad Shafique, Mohammad Rafique and Mohammad Latif, is dismissed and their conviction and sentence under section 302/34, P.P.C. are maintained; so is the conviction of Mohammad Rafique appellant under section 452, P.P.C.
5. We however remit the fine imposed under section 302/34, P.P. C. on the four appellants and grant them benefit of the provisions of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. and direct that while calculating their term of imprisonment the period for which they were in custody as under- trial prisoners may also be counted towards their sentence.
6. S.Q./A‑184/S Order accordingly.