ABDUL AZIZ vs The STATE
The petitioner, convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentenced to death, filed a review petition before the Supreme Court seeking a reduction in sentence based on a compromise reached with the legal heirs of the deceased. The core legal question was whether a post-conviction compromise between parties constitutes a valid ground for reviewing a final judgment of the Supreme Court. The Court held that it could not interfere in the matter as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record, which is a prerequisite for review jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a compromise between parties, while potentially reducing future violence, does not legally amount to an error in the judgment that would warrant a review. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed, with the Court noting that the petitioner could instead seek relief through a mercy petition to the Government.
- Does a compromise between the parties after the dismissal of a leave to appeal petition constitute a valid ground for reviewing a Supreme Court judgment?
- Is a compromise between the families of the deceased and the convict a sufficient basis to establish an error apparent on the face of the record?
- Can the Supreme Court reduce a death sentence in a review petition solely on the basis of a compromise reached between the parties?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Abdul Aziz petitioner was accused of murdering Abdul Hafiz at about 2 p.m. On 3-6-1974, near the Passport Office in Sialkot. He was tried for the offence and was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced inter alia to death. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court and the death sentence was confirmed. He then filed a petition for leave to appeal before this Court which was dismissed in limine by the impugned order.
2. He has now filed this Review Petition praying for reduction in sentence on the ground that the parties have compromised the matter. The father of the convict-petitioner as well as father of the deceased are present in Court. The latter has admitted having received Rs. 50,000 from the former as a result of the compromise and states that he has forgiven him.
3. We are afraid we are unable to interfere in the matter because the petitioner has not been able to show any error apparent on the p face of the record. We have, therefore, no option but to dismiss the Review Petition.
4. However, before parting with the matter we may mention that in a similar case, where the parties had compromised the matter and had filed a review for reduction in sentence, this Court while dismissing the review application observed as follows:- "Learned counsel then submitted that parties had settled their disputes and forgiven the petitioner, therefore, the further submission was that unless the sentence of death was altered to life imprisonment, in accordance with the compromise reached between the family of the deceased and the family of the petitioner, it would lead to another cycle of murders. In support of this plea, the learned counsel relied on a compromise deed, filed before us which according to the learned counsel had been signed by the families of the deceased and the petitioner. Reluctant as we are to reject a compromise which could lead to a reduction of violence and hatred, the compromise arrived at between the parties would be no ground whatever for a review of a judgment, because the fact that the parties have decided to bury their past hatreds does not mean that there is any error much less an error apparent in our judgment."
In view of the above-noted observation, it would be open to the petitioner, if so advised, to approach the Government through a mercy petition.
Cited by 1 case
- RASAB KHAN And ANOTHER vs ABDUL GHANI And 4 Other 1986 CLC 1400