MUHAMMAD HAYAT and others vs THE STATE
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing a criminal revision filed by the petitioners, who were convicted by the trial court for offences involving rioting and causing injuries. The incident arose from a water supply dispute, resulting in injuries to several prosecution witnesses. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether, given that the parties had reached a compromise to ensure future peaceful coexistence, the sentences imposed on the appellants could be mitigated. The Supreme Court, having converted the petition into an appeal, noted the compromise between the parties, which was supported by the State counsel and the complainants present in court. Consequently, the Court maintained the convictions but exercised its discretion to reduce the sentences of the appellants to the period already undergone. The judgment affirms the principle that while a compromise may not necessarily negate the underlying criminal conviction, it serves as a valid mitigating factor for the appellate court to consider when determining the appropriate quantum of sentence in cases involving private disputes.
- Can a compromise between parties in a criminal case be considered as a ground for reducing the sentence?
- Does a compromise between the parties negate a criminal conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the appellate court empowered to reduce a sentence to the period already undergone based on a post-conviction compromise?
- Section 308, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- Petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, dated 22-1-1984, dismissing their criminal revision.
2. We issued notice to the State and after hearing we proceed to convert the petition into appeal and dispose it of as such.
3. The occurrence in this case took place on 9-5-1981 in village Jhawarian, District Sargodha. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Muhammad Azam P.W.5 at 11-30 a.m. On the same day.
' Briefly stated the prosecution story is that Zahir and Azam P.Ws were watering the fields of Allah Bakhsh P.W. At his request. At about Namazwela, they noted that there was decrease of water supply in the Khal. When they went up the Khal to find out as to where was the leakage, they found Ahmad and Muhammad Yar standing armed with Lathis near the Khal where they had made the cut. When Zakir and Azam P.Ws. Tried to repair the Khal, Ahmad and Muhammad Yar stopped them, hot words were also exchanged. In the meantime the other co-accused also arrived there.
All of them were armed with Dangs. They started belabouring Zakir and Azam P.Ws. Muhammad Afzal and Allah Bakhsh P.Ws. Also came there. Muhammad Afzal P.W. Was also injured.
' The motive for the incident is stated to be that there was a dispute over the water supply.
4. Appellants were arrested and Sotas were recovered from them which were not found to be blood-stained and were, therefore, of no use to the prosecution. The prosecution case mainly rests on the testimony of Zakir P.W.2, Afzal P.W.3, Muhammad Azam P.W.5 and Allah Bakhsh P.W.6. Of these P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 had suffered injuries during the incident.
' The trial Court found them guilty of offence under section 308/149, P.P.C. For which it sentenced them to 2 years' R.I. Each and under section 148, P.P.C. They were convicted and sentenced to one years' R.I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concrurrently. Their appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge and criminal revision before the High Court failed. They have, therefore, approached this Court.
5. Before us the learned counsel for the appellants stated that both the parties have compromised the case with a view to live peacefully in future. Learned counsel for the complainant admitted this fact.
' Appellants' counsel submitted that in this view of the matter the sentences awarded to the appellants may be reduced. Learned State counsel as well as the P.Ws. And the complaining who was, present in the Court support these submissions.
' We, therefore, accept the appeal and while maintaining the convictions we reduce the sentences of the appellants to that already undergone by them. They shall be set at liberty forthwith unless required in some other case.