REHMAN ALI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a criminal revision and miscellaneous petition filed by a petitioner convicted under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, who was sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment and ordered to pay Diyat. The core legal question was whether a convict who has served their term of imprisonment but remains unable to pay the imposed Diyat can be released on bail to facilitate payment in installments. The Court, following precedents set by the Supreme Court and a Division Bench of the High Court, held that the petitioner could be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds equivalent to the Diyat amount. The Court permitted the petitioner to pay the Diyat in 36 equal monthly installments over a period of three years. The key principle laid down is that where a convict lacks the immediate means to pay Diyat, the court may grant bail to allow for payment in installments, provided that failure to pay within the specified timeframe results in the convict being taken back into custody to serve simple imprisonment until the amount is fully satisfied.
- Can a convict sentenced to pay Diyat be released on bail to facilitate payment in installments if they lack the immediate means to pay?
- What is the consequence if a convict, released on bail to pay Diyat in installments, fails to complete the payment within the stipulated three-year period?
- Does the court have the authority to permit the payment of Diyat in 36 equal monthly installments?
- Section 320, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 331, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. ' This judgment will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No,1 of 2000 and Criminal Revision No,748 of 2000.
2. ' Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner was convicted by the, learned trial Magistrate under section 320: P.P.C. And was sentenced to two years' R.I., and also to pay Diyat amounting to Rs,1,70,610. The vehicle was also taken into custody and it is informed that the same was subsequently confiscated in favour of the State in order to realise the amount of Diyat. Against that judgment dated 17-2-1999, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Khushab which was dismissed by him vide impugned judgment dated 10-10-2000, as such, the conviction of the petitioner under section 320, P.P.C. Was upheld and maintained. Apart from the appeal, Muhammad Afzal complainant filed a revision praying for enhancement of sentence.
3. The complainant's revision was accepted in the sense that the sentence of imprisonment was not enhanced. However, the amount of Diyat was enhanced from Rs,1,70,610 to Rs,2,51,625.40 as according to the Notification issued by the Federal Government for the year when the offence was committed it had been notified as such. Another revision which was also filed by Muhammad Ijaz owner of the vehicle praying that the petitioner is only a driver of the vehicle and as such, he is owner of the vehicle, the same may be released. This revision was allowed and the vehicle was released in his favour.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the sentence of imprisonment has been practically served out by him, the only sentence remains to be unserved 'is the payment of Diyat. It is pleaded that the appellant has no source whatsoever to pay the amount of Diyat. However, if he is released on bail, as per provisions of section 331, P.P.C. He will arrange payment of the same within a period of three years in 36 equal instalments. In support of this plea, the learned counsel has relied upon Amjad Mahmood v. The State (2001 PSC (Crl.) 222) wherein their Lordships in the Supreme Court ordered that the convict who had been sentenced to pay Diyat and daman be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum equivalent to that of amount of diyat and daman and he was permitted three years time to pay the amount in 36 instalments. It was further directed that in case he failed to make the payment then the convict be taken into custody and he would suffer simple imprisonment until the amount is paid in full by him. Another judgment i.e, Muhammad Iqbal and others v. The State (2001 M LD 1100) by a Division Bench of this Court has been cited wherein the above said ruling made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was followed and the convict-appellant was released on bail.
4. 4 . Respectfully following the rule laid down in the two above quoted cases, I would direct that after the petitioner has served out his sentence of imprisonment of two years which, of cource, will be calculated by adding the remission and concessions extended to him, the petitioner will be released on bail for a period of three years on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,51,625.40 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Khushab. He will make the payment of the same in 36 equal monthly instalments to the legal heirs of the victim Muhammad Farooq Tanvir. In case the amount is not paid during the period of three years then the petitioner will be taken back into custody and kept in Jail and he will be treated as a convict undergoing simple imprisonment. As the conviction of the appellant has not been assailed, therefore, the same is upheld and maintained. Criminal Miscellaneous No,1 of 2001 and the revision petition are disposed of in the above terms.