ABDUL MAJEED Versus STATE
This matter concerns applications for permission to compound an offence and accept a compromise reached between the accused and the legal heirs of the deceased. The central legal question was whether a compromise in a criminal case is legally permissible when the accused is Muslim and the deceased and their legal heirs are non-Muslims. The State contended that such a compromise could not be recorded due to the difference in religion. The Court held that the compounding of offences is governed strictly by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which does not impose any restriction based on the religion of the parties involved. The Court determined that the only requirement for compounding is the compoundability of the offence itself, which was satisfied in this case under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Court ruled that compounding is permissible between Muslims and non-Muslims, as well as between non-Muslims inter se, provided the statutory requirements are met. The compromise was accepted, and the appellant was ordered to be released.
- Is a compromise between a Muslim accused and non-Muslim legal heirs of a deceased legally permissible under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 impose any religious restrictions on the parties entering into a compromise?
- Can an offence under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be compounded by the legal heirs of the deceased?
- Section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 320, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 345(6), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. All the applications are for the permission to compound and for acceptance of the compromise affected between the accused persons and the legal heirs of the deceased. The only short controversy raised in the instant matter on behalf of State is that accused/appellant is Muslim, whereas deceased and his legal heirs are non-Muslims, no such compromise can be recorded.
2. The compounding of offence is regulated under section 345, Cr.P.C. it does not provide for any competence or otherwise of a person entering into a compromise nor does it restrict a Muslim or a non-Muslim from entering into such compromise. The only qualification for entertaining such application is the compound ability of the offence and in this case the offence for which appellants were charged and sentenced is under section 320, P.P:C. They were convicted to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay Diyat amount equivalent to the value of 30630 grams of silver amounting to Rs.3,06,300. All the legal heirs of the deceased have given their respective affidavits whereby they have compounded the offence and B expressed their desire to forgive the appellant. Section 320, P.P.C. is mentioned in the second column of the table wherein compoundable offences are listed and it is so provided that the offence falling under section 320 may with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending be compounded by the person. mentioned in the third column of the table and in the instant case father Manik and Shrimati Ilmai the mother of the deceased have given their respective affidavits to forego the Qisas and Diyat. There is no other restriction in the provision of 345, Cr.P.C. or qualification attached as to person between whom tht compounding can be affected, therefore, I am of the view that compounding C of the offence can be affected between a Muslim and non-Muslims and even between non-Muslims inter se. The applications are in order duly supporter: by respective affidavits of exoneration. The permission to compromise is granted and compromise is accepted as required under section 345(6), Cr.P.C. Resultantly the appellant is to be released forthwith in not required in any other case. All the applications stand disposed of.
3. N.H.Q./A-94/K Appeal accepted.
Cited by 2 cases
- Awais and another vs The State 2021 PLD Sindh 25
- MUHAMMAD AZAM alias ASLAM-7 vs THE STATE 2010 PLD Quetta 30