HAMAYUN vs The STATE
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had maintained the petitioner's conviction under Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing the death of a person by driving a truck. Initially, the petitioner was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge and sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment, while a revision petition filed by the complainant seeking enhancement to a charge under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the parties presented a compromise, wherein the complainant, as the sole heir of the deceased, received compensation and expressed forgiveness, stating he had no further grievance. The State raised no objection to the compromise. The Supreme Court, exercising its discretion, converted the petition into an appeal and maintained the conviction under Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner. The key principle established is that in cases involving offences under Section 304-A, the court may consider a compromise between the parties as a mitigating factor for sentencing purposes.
- Can a compromise between the parties be considered as a mitigating factor in a conviction under Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to reduce a sentence to the period already undergone based on a compromise reached between the convict and the complainant?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The petitioner herein, namely, Hamayun son of Alauddin, over-ran Abdul Hamid with his truck and crushed him. The petitioner was, accordingly, tried under section 302, P.P C but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore convicted him under section 304-A, P.P.C. And sentenced him to 4 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default to further undergo R.I. For six months. Out of the fine, if recovered, half of the amount was ordered to be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation.
2. The convict appealed against his conviction and sentence; while the complainant Muhammad Sadiq, maternal-uncle of the deceased, filed a revision praying for alteration of the conviction from section 304-A, P.P.C. To section 302, P.P.C. And enhancement of the sentence to death.
3. Both the matters were heard by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, who, by his judgment, dated 7-4-1984, was pleased to dismiss both the appeals (filed by the petitioner), as also the revision (preferred by the complainant Muhammad Sadiq) and maintained the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in to. The petitioner has now moved this Court by this petition for leave to appeal.
4. In the meanwhile, the parties, have entered into a compromise. A sum of Rs.30,000 has been paid to the complainant, Muhammad Sadiq, who, it appears, is the only heir of the deceased and he has stated before us that he has forgiven the petitioner and does not wish that any action should be taken against him. Since he has no grievance left against him he has no objection if the petitioner is set free.
5. We issued notice to the State and Mr. Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramdey, the learned Additional Advocate-General has appeared. He has no objection if the Court accepts the compromise entered into between the parties and decides the case accordingly.
6. We would, therefore, convert this petition into an appeal and while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under section 304-A, P.P.C. Reduce the sentence to that already undergone by him.
He may, therefore, be set at liberty, if not wanted in any other case.
S.Q. Sentenced reduced.