Ashiq Ali Versus State
This matter concerns criminal appeals filed by two appellants, Ashiq Ali and Muhammad Ramzan, challenging their conviction and sentencing by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the acquittal of one co-accused based on a compromise, where the disputed property was restored to the complainant, necessitates the acquittal of the other co-accused who did not enter into a formal compromise. The Court held that the compromise between the complainant and the primary appellant was genuine and voluntary. Regarding the second appellant, the Court determined that his case was at par with the co-accused, as they faced identical charges and no specific, distinct allegations were leveled against him. The Court emphasized that keeping the second appellant incarcerated would serve no legal or technical purpose once the primary dispute was resolved and the property restored. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences for both appellants, holding that maintaining the conviction of the second appellant would be unjust given the circumstances and the restoration of harmony.
- Can a co-accused be acquitted based on a compromise entered into by the primary accused when the charges are identical?
- Does the restoration of disputed property to the complainant justify the acquittal of a co-accused who did not formally compromise?
- Should the conviction of a co-accused be maintained when the primary accused has been acquitted through a compromise and the underlying dispute resolved?
- Section 345(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 345(6), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Order
Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J .--- Through both these appeals, appellants Ashiq Ali and Muhammad Ramzan have assailed the judgment dated 31.05.2024 passed by learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (East) in Criminal Complaint No.20 of 2019 (Re: Muhammad Ashraf v. Muhammad Ramzan and another) whereby they have been convicted and sentenced to for the term of seven years R.I along with fine of Rs.100,000/- each, in default of which, to serve an imprisonment for four days more. Besides, they were directed to pay compensation of Rs.300,000/- each to complainant.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the complainant files applications under Sections 345(2) and 345(6) Cr.P.C duly supported by the Affidavit of the complainant as well as certain documents, taken on record. Office to assign proper numbers to the applications. Complainant Muhammad Ashraf having CNIC 42201-0692168-3 is present along with his counsel and submits that possession of the disputed property has been restored to him; therefore, he with core of his heart has forgiven the appellant (appellant Ashiq Ali in Criminal Appeal No.421 of 2024); hence, they have filed compromise applications jointly and does not want to prosecute the appellant anymore. Learned Counsel for complainant, however, under instructions records no objection if these applications are allowed and appellant is acquitted of the charge.
4. Learned Deputy P.G Sindh present in Court waives notice of the applications and while placing his reliance upon the case of Akhter Hussain v. Station House Officer Sachal Karahi and 02 others reported in 2020 PCr.LJ Note 20, records her no objection, if applications are granted.
5. Since the possession of land in dispute has been handed over to complainant; therefore, the complainant does not want to prosecute the appellant anymore; hence, he has entered into compromise with the appellant voluntarily and has raised no objection for grant of these applications as well disposal of the appeal accordingly. Learned Deputy P.G has also extended his no objection.
6. In view of above, it is observed that compromise entered into between the parties appears to be genuine, lawful and without any pressure or coercion from any side and that complainant has voluntarily forgiven the appellant / accused. Therefore, keeping in view the cordial relations between the parties in future, the compromise application under Section 345(2) Cr.P.C is hereby granted and application under Section 346(6) Cr.P.C is accepted. Appellant Ashiq Ali son of Muhammad Ramzan is acquitted of the charges by way of compromise. He is in custody; therefore, he shall be released forthwith, if his custody is not required in any other custody case.
7. Since, the complainant has entered into compromise with main co-accused Ashiq Ali and the possession of disputed property has also been restored to him; hence, the case of appellant Muhammad Ramzan is at par and conviction cannot be maintained more particularly when on identical charge, co-accused has been acquitted by way of compromise; besides, possession of the disputed property has been restored to the complainant.
8. It is admitted fact that complainant as well as appellant Ashiq Ali have amicably settled all their differences and agreed to pass rest of their lives in peace, tranquility and harmony. It is also settled law that non-compoundability of a particular offence under any section of the enactment should not be read in isolation but it should be read in the background of each criminal case and beneficial interpretation should be given to it. In instant case, though the possession of the disputed property has been handed over/restored to the complainant yet he has entered into compromise with only appellant Ashiq Ali: however, has not compromised with appellant Muhammad Ramzan, meaning thereby he was appellant Ashiq Ali who dispossessed the complainant and simultaneously has handed over the possession of property in dispute to complainant, therefore, complainant has entered into compromise with appellant Ashiq Ali only. As far as, case of appellant Muhammad Ramzan is concerned, no different charge was framed against him nor any specific allegation regarding dispossessing the complainant from particular property has been levelled against him; hence, in such state of affairs, case of appellant Muhammad Ramzan cannot be bifurcated or separated. The Legal question would be that when the co-accused has been acquitted by way of compromise and disputed property has also been restored to the complainant then keeping appellant Muhammad Ramzan in jail on similar charges, would serve no legal or technical purpose. The complainant has not compromise with appellant Muhammad Ramzan for no reason, as there was a common order against both of the convicts; hence, co-accused Ashiq Ali, as pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, was the main culprit who allegedly committed crime by dispossessing the complainant from property in dispute and subsequently he entered into compromise with the complainant by surrendering the possession of property in question, meaning thereby, appellant Ashiq Ali was the person, who committed the crime and subsequently after surrendering possession has entered into compromise with the complainant. therefore, no liability has been left on the part of appellant Muhammad Ramzan for which he may be burdened in terms of his incarceration.
9. In the circumstances, the case of appellant Muhammad Ramzan may not be deferred or treated differently, particularly when no other crime was committed by him nor a different charge was framed by the trial Court against him except the one and common which stands compromised between appellant Ashiq Ali and the complainant. Therefore, case of appellant Muhammad Ramzan is at par with co-accused/convict Ashiq Ali. As far as, question of peace, tranquility and harmony in the area is concerned, learned counsel for appellant Muhammad Ramzan, under the instructions, submits that he would also maintain peace, tranquility and harmony in the area and shall not repeat the same in any manner. In my humble view, appellant Muhammad Ramzan has also decided to live in peace and tranquility by ignoring and settling all their past difference. Hence, for the sake of their welfare in general and betterment of socio-economic conditions of the society in particular, it will be appropriate to accept the appeal filed by appellant Muhammad Ramzan. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No.428 of 2024 filed by appellant Muhammad Ramzan is hereby allowed. Resultantly, impugned judgment 31.05.2024 is hereby set-aside to the extent of conviction and the sentence of imprisonment of the appellants including sentence of fine, only; whereas, it is hereby maintained to the extent of sentence of handing over possession of the property in dispute, to the complainant/respondent No.2. Resultantly, Appellant Muhammad Ramzan son of Muhammad Ashraf is hereby acquitted of the charges, in the terms stated above. He is in custody, therefore, he shall also be released forthwith, if his custody is not required in any other custody case.
Both appeals stand disposed of in above terms. Office to place a copy of this order in the connected appeal.
JKA-71/Sindh Appeals allowed.