JAHANZEB vs The STATE
The appellant, Jahanzeb, was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife and sentenced to death. Following the confirmation of the sentence by the High Court, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the families of the appellant and the deceased reached a compromise, with the heirs of the deceased pardoning the appellant and receiving compensation of Rs. 10,000. The core legal question was whether a compromise between the parties in a murder case, where the death penalty was imposed, could justify a reduction in the sentence. The Supreme Court, satisfied that the compromise was voluntary and fair, maintained the conviction but set aside the death sentence, reducing it to life imprisonment. The Court relied on the principle established in Muhammad Bashir v. The State, holding that a compromise between the parties in a murder case, while not negating the conviction, constitutes a valid ground for mitigating the sentence of death to life imprisonment, while also granting the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Can a compromise between the heirs of a deceased and the accused justify the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable when a death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- The appellant, Jahanzeb, aged 30 years, was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. For murdering his wife, Mst. Nasim Akhtar aged 22 years and sentenced to death. The sentence having been confirmed on reference; by the High Court and his appeal against his conviction having been dismissed hence this appeal before us.
2. The appellant and his wife Mst. Nasim Akhtar are first cousins but their-marriage was disaster. The appellant was a habitual gambler and suffered from other vices and good for nothing. However, to children were born out of this unhappy wedlock.
3. Since the appellant could not maintain his wife who was living in misery the elders of both the families, namely, the father of the girl, Mannah Khan as also the father of the appellant, Faqir Muhammad, had decided that the union should be ended and the appellant should divorce his wife. This decision appears to have infuriated the appellant, who fell upon his wife with a knife and murdered her inflicting 12 knife injuries on her person. This was on 31-10-1974.
4. In the meanwhile, during these ten years, the bitterness caused by this terrible at of the appellant and the reality that the to minor children will become orphans, if the sentence of death passed on their father is executed, has resulted in persuading the families to forgive and forget. Accordingly, today when the appeal came up for hearing the father of the deceased girl, Mannah Khan, and the mother of the appellant appeared before us and submitted that the parties have resolved' their differences and entered into a compromise. The heirs of the deceased, of their own free will and without any pressure, coercion, deception or anything of the kind, have pardoned the appellant Jahanzeb and that the latter has paid Rs.10,000 as compensation to the heirs of the late Mst. Nasim Akhtar. Both the parties prayed this Court to pardon the appellant in view of this development.
5. We are, after having questioned the father of the deceased girl, Mannah Khan, satisfied that fair settlement has been arrived at between the parties and are inclined to accept it. Mannah Khan, the father of the deceased girl and grand-father of the minor children has undertaken before us to deposit the amount of Rs. 10,000 in some fixed deposit account in the name of the minor children.
6. We would, therefore, as laid down in Muhammad Bashir v. The State PLD 1982 SC 139, accept the appeal to the extent that while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under section 302, P.P.C.
7. Set aside the sentence of death passed against him and reduce the sentence to life imprisonment and also direct that he shall be granted the benefit under section 382-B, Cr. P.C. In the matter of computation of sentence that he has yet to undergo.
8. This appeal, with the above modifications, shall stand dismissed