GHULAM RASUL And Others vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the convictions of the petitioners for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while reducing their sentences. The petitioners, convicted of causing grievous hurt and wrongful confinement, sought relief following a compromise reached with the victim, Mirza Mumtaz Beg, who expressed a desire for amicable future relations and stated he had forgiven the assailants without receiving compensation. The core legal question was whether the court should permit the compounding of the offences based on this compromise. The Supreme Court held that given the nature of the attack and the injuries inflicted, the case was not appropriate for compounding. However, the Court established the principle that a genuine compromise and forgiveness by the victim, motivated by a desire for peaceful co-existence, constitutes a valid ground for the mitigation of sentence. Consequently, the Court maintained the convictions but reduced the sentences of imprisonment to the period already undergone and remitted the fines imposed.
- Can a criminal conviction be set aside solely on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the victim?
- Does a victim's forgiveness and desire for peaceful co-existence constitute a valid ground for the reduction of a sentence?
- Is a case involving grievous hurt and wrongful confinement suitable for compounding based on a compromise?
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Ghulam Rasul, Muhammad Hussain and Ramzan, petitioners, were accused alongwith some others of offence under section 325/342/149, P.P.C. They were convicted of the said offences by the trial Court which sentenced each of them to 7 years' R.1. Under section 325/149, P.P.C. And a fine of Rs.5,000. It also convicted all of them under section 342, P.P.C. And sentenced each to one years R.I. The High Court vide the impugned judgment, dated 23-1-1985, accepted the appeal of 6 of the co-accused but rejected that of the three petitioners. It, however, reduced their sentence from 7 years' R.I. To 3 years' R.I. Each and a fine of Rs.3,000. Sentences under section 34, P.P.C. Was also reduced from 1 year's R.I. To 6 months' R.I. And fine of Rs.500 each.
They have now come up to this Court for grant of leave to appeal against the aforementioned judgment of the High Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate- General who appeared in response to a notice issued by this Court, as also petitioner Mirza Muhammad Beg himself who is present in person, we convert the petition into appeal and proceed to dispose of it as such.
3. Mirza Mumtaz Beg (petitioner), who is the victim of the assault by the petitioners has stated before us that he and his family have compromised the matter with the accused-petitioner because they want to live with them amicably, in order to obviate further hostility between them.
They have not received any compensation whatsoever for forgiving them.
4. Considering the nature of the attack made and the injuries inflicted by the accused-appellants, we do not think this a fit case in which the matter should be permitted to be compounded.
However, in view of the fact that he (Mirza Mumtaz Beg), has genuinely forgiven his assailant with the laudable motive of peaceful co-existence in future, we think it is a fit case for reduction of sentence. We, therefore, maintain their conviction, but reduce their sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone by them and remit the fine imposed on them.
With the above modification in the sentences, the appeal stands disposed of.