MUHAMMAD JALAL vs THE STATE
The appellant, convicted for murder and sentenced to pay Diyat and undergo imprisonment under sections 308, 309, and 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, challenged his conviction. During the appeal, the appellant's counsel abandoned the challenge to the conviction, acknowledging the appellant's admission of inflicting injuries during his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appellant, having served his substantive sentence of imprisonment, sought release on bail to arrange for the payment of the Diyat amount, citing poverty. The State did not oppose the request. The Court maintained the conviction and sentence but granted the appellant bail, permitting him to pay the outstanding Diyat amount in installments over a period of three years. The Court established that failure to pay the Diyat within this timeframe would result in the appellant's re-arrest and imprisonment until the amount is satisfied. This decision balances the enforcement of Diyat obligations with the practical reality of an indigent convict's ability to pay.
- Can a convict sentenced to pay Diyat be released on bail to facilitate payment after serving the substantive imprisonment sentence?
- Is a court empowered to allow the payment of Diyat in installments over a specified period?
- What are the consequences for a convict who fails to pay the Diyat amount within the court-ordered installment period?
- Section 308, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 309, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 331, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' Muhammad Jalal son of Malik Sohanra was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alipur, District Muzaffargarh for the murder of Muhammad Ibrahim and vide judgment, dated 9-5-2000, was convicted under section 308, P.P.C. And was sentenced to pay Diyat to the legal heirs' of the deceased after excluding 1/8th share of the widow who had under section 309, P.P.C. Waived her right of Qisas. In addition thereto he was also convicted under section 311, P.P.C. And was sentenced to 12 years R.I.
2. Aggrieved by the said conviction he has filed this appeal on the following grounds:---
(i) Impugned judgment is illegal and contrary to facts,
(ii) Prosecution evidence was discrepant and unreliable whereas defence evidence was reliable and
(iii) That sentence is severe.
3. After arguing the appeal at some length, it was realized by the appellant's counsel that the appellant had during his examination under section 342 of the Cr.P.C. Admitted that he had inflicted injuries to the deceased, though plea of self-defence was taken but according to record the deceased was unarmed and the injuries were repeated.
4. Realizing the weakness of his stand appellant's counsel stated that he does not press any ground and urged that the appellant has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him under section 311, P.P.C. And is now confined in the jail only on account or non- payment of Diyat amount; that he is a poor person and is unable to pay Diyat in lump sum otherwise he would not have stayed in jail after expiry of his substantive sentence. It was prayed that he may be releaesd on bail in order to enable him to pay Diyat as contemplated by section 331, P.P.C.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State did not oppose the said request.
6. For the reasons stated above, the impugned conviction and sentences are maintained and the appeal is disposed of in the manner that the appellant is released on bail provided he furnishes bail-cum surety bonds in the sum equal to the amount of Diyat payable by him, with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alipur, District Muzaffargarh, undertaking to pay the same, in instalments according to his convenience, within a period of three years from the date of this order.
7. The offence was committed by the appellant on 5-2-1996. Value of Diyat for the financial year 1995-96 vide Gazette Notification S.R.O. No,601(I) of 1995, dated 2-7-1995, was Rs,1,89,906.
8. Widow of the deceased had waived her right of Qiasas without any compensation, her share in Diyat was 1/8th which comes to Rs,23,738.
9. The appellants, therfore, liable to deposit in the trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Alipur) the remaining amount of Rs,1,66,168, as already said within a period of three years from the date of this order in instalments according to his own convenience, failing which he shall be re.: arrested and sent to prison where he shall stay for such time till he pays the said amount or the remaining portion thereof.
10. The amount of Diyat deposited by the appellant shall be disbursed by the learned trial Court to the legal heirs of Muhammad Ibrahim deceased except his widow, according to their legal shares under the Muslim Law.
11. According to judgment delivered by the trial Court on 9-5-2000 (at page 13 para.19) list of legal heirs of the deceased, Mark 'A' is on the Me. accordingly.