Pakistan Case Law
2003 SCMR 735

MUNAWAR JAVED Versus THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2003 SCMR 735
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition No.508/L of 2001
Date2002-07-03
Judge(s)Sh. Riaz Ahmed, C.J., Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar
Authored bySh. Riaz Ahmed
ResultOrder accordingly
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court regarding criminal conviction and sentence. The core legal question concerns the appropriateness of the sentence and the mode of payment of the Diyat amount imposed on the convict. The Supreme Court of Pakistan declined to interfere with the merits of the impugned judgment, holding that the sentence already undergone was adequate and the Diyat amount of Rs. 2,60,000 was correctly maintained. However, taking a lenient view of the petitioner's poverty, the Court modified the payment schedule, allowing the Diyat amount to be paid over a period of three years in equal monthly instalments instead of the original three instalments. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court may exercise leniency in modifying the payment terms of financial obligations such as Diyat based on the demonstrated financial hardship of a convicted person.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can the Supreme Court modify the schedule of payment for Diyat on the ground of the petitioner's poverty?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the merits of a concurrent finding regarding sentence and Diyat when the sentence undergone is considered adequate?
Criminal ProcedureDiyatSentence ModificationSupreme Court of PakistanInstalment Payment

1. SH. RIAZ AHMED, C.J. ‑‑‑We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have perused the judgment impugned. As regards merits of the case, we are not inclined to interfere therewith, because on that score the judgment impugned is unexceptionable; inasmuch as, the sentence already undergone by petitioner was considered adequate and appropriate to meet the ends of justice and the amount of `Diyat' amounting to Rs.2,60,000 was maintained and it was allowed to be paid by the petitioner in three equal instalments. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has served out the substantive sentence and only the amount of `Diyat' remains to be paid by him. It is stated that petitioner is a poor person and cannot pay the amount 'Diyat' in three instalments. Taking a lenient view, we would modify the order of the High Court and direct that petitioner shall now pay the amount of `Diyat' over a period of three years in equal monthly instalments. Disposed of.

2. N.H.Q./M‑637/S Order accordingly.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.