MUHAMMAD HANIF And Another vs The STATE
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of two appellants for the murder of their step-mother under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court sentenced both to death, which the High Court upheld, though it reduced the sentence of one appellant to life imprisonment. Following a compromise between the appellants and the heirs of the deceased, the core legal question was whether a compromise between parties in a murder case, even in the absence of monetary compensation, constitutes a valid mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence. The Supreme Court held that while the conviction was fully justified, the compromise reached between the parties served as a significant mitigating factor. Relying on established precedent, the Court affirmed that a compromise, even without monetary compensation, is a valid ground for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment. Consequently, the Court maintained the convictions but reduced the death sentence of the remaining appellant to life imprisonment, while granting both appellants the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the computation of their sentences.
- Can a compromise between the accused and the heirs of the deceased be considered a mitigating circumstance in a murder case?
- Is the payment of monetary compensation a mandatory requirement for a compromise to be accepted as a ground for reducing a death sentence?
- Does a compromise between parties justify the acquittal of an accused person whose conviction for murder is otherwise fully justified?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--Muhammad Hanif and Muhammad Shafiq sons of Umar Din were tried for the murder of their step-mother Mst. Zenab Bibi under section 302/34, P.P.C. Both of them were found guilty by the learned Sessions Judge, Kasur vide his order dated 23-12-1978 under section 302/34, P.P.C. And were sentenced to death. They were also ordered to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 each, in default of payment of fine they were ordered to undergo to years' rigorous imprisonment.
2. On appeal and reference, a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court upheld the conviction of the appellants but reduced the sentence of Muhammad Shafiq from death to imprisonment for life.
3. Thus, the judgment of the trial Judge was upheld, except with this modification. This appeal, by leave of this Court, is directed against the afore--mentioned judgment and order of the High Court.
4. The deceased, as noted already, was the step-mother of the appellants being the younger wife of their father Umar Din. The complainant Muhammad Afzal, P.W.9, is her real son and the half-brother of the appellants. Since the judgment was delivered by the High Court, the parties have entered into a compromise. In pursuance thereof, Muhammad Afzal has filed an affidavit before us to the effect that in view of the close relationship between the parties and on account o the intervention of the elders of the family and with a view to maintaining peace and amity between its members, the children of Mst. Zenab Bibi deceased have forgiven their to half-brothers (the accused appellants) for the murder of their mother and they request that they may be acquitted.
5. We have considered the circumstances of the case as also the, affidavit of the complainant and feel that it would be in the interest of the families if the compromise is accepted There is, of course, no question of acquitting the appellants merely on the plea of the complainant when we find that their conviction under section 302/34, P.P.C. Is fully justified. However, we can, in such a situation, impose the lesser penalty on Muhammad Hanif, appellant, as held by us in Muhammad Bashir v.
6. The State PLD 1982 SC 139.
7. Mr. Karam Elahi Bhatti, learned counsel for the State has no objection to the Court accepting the compromise but submits- that in this case as no compensation is being paid by Muhammad Hanif, appellant, to the heirs of the deceased the compromise cannot be accepted.
8. We do not find any force in this submission because this Court has already held in Iftikhar Ahmad v.
9. The State PLD 1982 SC 277 that a compromise, which is reached even without providing monetary compensation, can be treated as a mitigating circumstance for reducing the sentence of death to imprisonment for life.
10. We respectfully agree with the dictum that a compromise, which does not provide for payment of any monetary compensation can, in certain cases, be treated as a good ground for reducing the sentence. In the circumstances of this case, we are fully satisfied that the compromise entered into between the parties should be taken into account for this purpose.
11. The result is that, though the conviction of the appellants under section 302/34, P.P.C. Is maintained, the sentence of death imposed upon Muhammad Hanif, appellant, is reduced from death to life imprison--ment. The sentence of fine however, is maintained, so also the conviction and sentence of Muhammad Shafiq, appellant, who has already been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment only, is maintained. However, both of them will be given the benefit of the provisions of section 382- 8, Cr.P.C. In the matter of computing the sentence that they have yet to undergo.
12. The appeal is accepted to the extent indicated above.