SAJJAD HUSSAIN Versus State
The appellant, Sajjad Hussain, challenged his conviction and sentences imposed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sargodha, for offences under sections 324, 337-F(iv), 337-F(vi), and 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from F.I.R. No. 274 of 2001. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed an application under section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking acquittal based on a compromise reached with the complainant and the injured prosecution witness. The core legal question was whether the court could accept a compromise between the parties to set aside the conviction and sentences. Upon the personal appearance of the complainant and the injured witness, who confirmed the compromise and stated they had forgiven the appellant in the name of Almighty Allah, the Court expressed satisfaction regarding the genuineness of the settlement. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences, and acquitted the appellant. The judgment affirms the principle that where a genuine compromise is reached between the parties in compoundable offences, the appellate court may allow the withdrawal of the prosecution and acquit the accused.
- Can an appellate court acquit an accused based on a compromise reached between the parties during the pendency of an appeal?
- Is a compromise between the complainant and the accused sufficient ground to set aside a conviction for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
The appellant, namely, Sajjad Hussain son of Nazar Muhammad was tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Sargodha in case F.I.R. No. 274 of 2001, registered at Police Station, Sahiwal, District Sargodha for offences under sections 324, 109, P.P.C. The learned trial Magistrate, by virtue of his judgment, dated 19-2-2004 found him guilty of the said charge, convicted and sentenced him as under:--
(i) Under section 324, P.P.C.
To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs.20,000 or in default of payment thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for one years.
(ii) Under section 337-F(iv), P.P.C.
To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two year as Tazir with further direction to pay an amount of Rs.10,000 as Daman to Najam-ul-Hassan injured P.W.
(iii) Under section 337-F(vi), P.P.C.
To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years with further direction to pay a sum of Rs.20,000 as Daman to Najam-ul-Hassan injured P.W.
(iv) Under section 337-F(v), P.P.C.
To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years as Tazir with further direction to pay a sum of Rs.10,000 as Daman to Najam-ul-Hassan injured P.W.
All the sentences awarded to appellant were ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also granted to him.
2. The appellant by filing the instant appeal has called in question convictions and sentences awarded to him through the impugned judgment. During pendency of the same, an application under section 345, Cr.P.C. bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No.1695/M of 2004, duly supported by affidavits of the complainant and the injured P.W., was filed on behalf of the appellant seeking his acquittal on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
3. Today, Zamir-ul-Hassan, the complainant, and Najam-ul-Hassan, injured P.W. have appeared in Court and affirmed the factum of compromise arrived at between them and the appellant. They stated that they have forgiven the appellant in the name of Almighty Allah and have no objection, if he is acquitted of the charge.
4. In view of above situation, I am satisfied with regard to the genuineness and correctness of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
5. Accordingly, I accept this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences awarded to the appellant and acquit him of the charge. He is directed to be released from jail forthwith if not required in any other case. Criminal Miscellaneous No.1695/M of 2004 also stands disposed of.
Appeal accepted.
H.B.T./S-298/L Appeal accepted.