MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life sentence imposed on the appellant by the Special Judge (STA), Karachi-West, for the murder of his wife, Mst. Marium, by burning. The conviction primarily rested upon the deceased's dying declaration, which was incorporated into the First Information Report. The appellant pleaded not guilty throughout the trial and maintained his innocence on appeal. The core legal question addressed by the Court was whether the offence could be compounded by the legal heirs of the deceased. The Court held that the offence of murder could only be compounded with the person who has committed the offence, not merely one accused of it. Furthermore, the Court found no reason to disbelieve the dying declaration and, given the circumstances, exercised its discretion to refuse permission to compound the offence. Consequently, the applications for compounding the offence were dismissed, and the appeal proceeded on its merits, with the Court affirming the reliability of the dying declaration as the basis for conviction.
- Can the offence of murder be compounded with a person who is merely accused of the crime?
- Is a dying declaration a sufficient basis for a conviction in a murder case?
- Does the court have discretion to refuse the compounding of an offence even if legal heirs agree?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' The appellant has been convicted by Special Judge Court No,1 (STA), Karachi-West under section 302(b), P.P.C. And he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life.
2. The charge against the appellant was that he killed his wife . Mst. Marium by burning after sprinkling oil on her The conviction has been based, mainly, on the statement of the deceased, recorded as dying declaration, which was later on incorporated in the F.I.R.
3. ' Before the trial Court, the present appellant pleaded not guilty and, in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Also, he declined to admit his guilt. Even at this stage, he does not accept that he killed the deceased in this case, and has challenged the conviction and sentence by way of present appeal.
4. ' The offence may be compounded by the legal heirs with the person who has committed the offence and not with one who is only accused of commission of such offence. The legal heirs of the deceased can only forgive a person, for this purpose, who has killed the deceased. At this stage we do not find any reason to disbelieve the statement in the form of dying declaration made by the deceased. In view of the circumstances of this case, we do not feel that present one is a case where we should exercise our discre tion to grant permission to compound the offence. Both the applications are, therefore, dismissed.