ABDUL AZIZ and anothers vs THE STATE
This criminal revision petition was filed by Abdul Aziz and Munir Ahmad challenging their convictions and sentences for causing injuries to the complainant's brother, Nazir Ahmad. The petitioners were originally convicted by a Magistrate under sections 337-F(iv) and 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (for Abdul Aziz) and section 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (for Munir Ahmad). Their appeals were dismissed by the Sessions Judge, though one conviction was set aside. During the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioners filed an application under section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking acquittal based on a compromise reached with the injured party. The court examined the injured party, who confirmed the compromise was voluntary and that the offence had been compounded. Finding the compromise to be genuine and voluntary, the court accepted the revision petition, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the petitioners of the charges. The court ordered the discharge of their bail bonds, effectively concluding the criminal proceedings against them.
- Can a criminal conviction be set aside in revision proceedings based on a compromise between the parties?
- What is the effect of a voluntary compromise on a conviction for causing hurt under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the court required to verify the voluntary nature of a compromise before acquitting an accused?
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Abdul Aziz and Munir Ahmad, petitioners, alongwith five others, namely, Nazar Hussain, Mubarak, Manzoor and Qadeer were tried by a learned Magistrate Section 30 at Sheikhupura for causing injuries to Nazir Ahmad, brother of the complainant. By virtue of his judgment, dated 31-5-2000, the learned trial Magistrate found Abdul Aziz and Munir Ahmad guilty of the said charge, convicted Munir under sections 337-F(v), P.P.C. And punished him rigorous imprisonment for three years plus Daman equal to Rs,20,000 or in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Abdul Aziz petitioner .Was convicted under section 337-F(iv), P.P.C. And was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with Daman of Rs,20,000 or in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. He was also convicted under section 337-F(i), P.P.C. And was awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences awarded to Abdul Aziz were ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was, however, extended to both the convicts. The said learned Magistrate by giving benefit of doubt to their co-accused acquitted them of the charge
2. The said judgment was appealed against by the convicts before learned Sessions Judge, who while maintaining convictions of the appellants dismissed their appeal by virtue of his judgment, dated 30-8-2000. However, conviction of Abdul Aziz appellant under section 337-F(i), P.P.C. Was set aside.
3. By filing this revision petition, the petitioners have called in question conviction and sentences passed against them.
3. During pendency of this petition, an application under section 345, Cr.P.C. Bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No,1695/M of 2001 was moved on behalf of the petitioners praying therein that they be acquitted of the charge on the basis of compromise arrived at between them and the complainant as well as Nazir Ahmad injured.
4. Notice was issued to the State and learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to produce the complainant and the injured P.W. In pursuance of said direction. Nazir Ahmad, injured, has entered appearance. His statement has been recorded on a separate sheet. He stated that the complainant is unable to walk due to his serious illness. He further stated that a compromise has been effected between them and the petitioners and they have compounded the offence after granting them AFW. They bear no objection if the petitioners are acquitted of the charge.
5. After recording statement of Nazir Ahmad injured, I find that the compromise is genuine and voluntary. According to his statement, he has compounded the offence and pray that the petitioners may be acquitted of the charge.
6. 1 am satisfied with regard to the voluntary nature of the statement of Nazir Ahmad and also the voluntary character of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties.
7. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, I accept this revision petition, quash conviction of the petitioners and acquit them of the charge. The petitioners are on bail, so, their bail bonds stand discharge.