P L D 2016 Peshawar 26
Offence under S.436, P.P.C., though was not compoundable, and application under S.345, Cr.P.C. was in-applicable to compound the same, but both the parties had amicably settled down all their differences and had resolved to lead rest of their lives in peace and tranquillity---Earlier, husband of the complainant was charged for murder by the petitioners' side, which case was also compromised---As a quid pro quo of compromise in the said murder case, complainant and her family entered into compromise with the petitioners in the present case---Section 436, P.P.C., was not compoundable, but non-compoundability of a section of law, should not be read in isolation, but it should be read in the background of each case and beneficial interpretation should be given---When the parties in the case had earnestly decided to live in peace by forgetting all their differences then it would be a need of the hour to acquit the petitioners in the present case on the basis of compromise, despite the non-compoundability---Application for acquittal of the petitioners, which was moved by the respondent/complainant herself, had shown that she herself was eager in acquittal of petitioners/accused persons---Impugned judgment was set aside, and the petitioners, were acquitted in the case against them---Accused were set free.
P L D 2016 Peshawar 26
Before Abdul Latif Khan and Lal Jan Khattak, JJ
IJAZ and another---Petitioners
Versus
Mst. MANADIA and another---Respondents
Criminal Revision No.56-M of 2014, decided on 12th December, 2014.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 427 & 436---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345---Mischief causing damage, mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house---Compromise having been arrived at between the parties, complainant moved application before the Trial Court for acquittal of petitioners/accused persons on the basis of compromise---Said application was dismissed by the Trial Court---Validity---Offence under S.436, P.P.C., though was not compoundable, and application under S.345, Cr.P.C. was in-applicable to compound the same, but both the parties had amicably settled down all their differences and had resolved to lead rest of their lives in peace and tranquillity---Earlier, husband of the complainant was charged for murder by the petitioners' side, which case was also compromised---As a quid pro quo of compromise in the said murder case, complainant and her family entered into compromise with the petitioners in the present case---Section 436, P.P.C., was not compoundable, but non-compoundability of a section of law, should not be read in isolation, but it should be read in the background of each case and beneficial interpretation should be given---When the parties in the case had earnestly decided to live in peace by forgetting all their differences then it would be a need of the hour to acquit the petitioners in the present case on the basis of compromise, despite the non-compoundability---Application for acquittal of the petitioners, which was moved by the respondent/complainant herself, had shown that she herself was eager in acquittal of petitioners/accused persons---Impugned judgment was set aside, and the petitioners, were acquitted in the case against them---Accused were set free.
Sayyed Badshah for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent No.1..
Sabir Shah A.A.-G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 12th December, 2014.
JUDGMENT
LAL JAN KHATTAK, J.---Petitioners Ijaz and Sharif Zaman alias Laliai have filed the instant criminal revision under section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Nifaz-e-Adl Regulation, 2009 against the order dated 2-10-2014 of the learned Additional District Judge/Izafi Zilla Qazi-I, Dir Lower at Timergara, whereby the learned lower court has refused to acquit them on the basis of compromise.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 Mst. Manadia had lodged a report against the petitioners and their father under sections 436/452/427/34, P.P.C. at Police Station, Balambat District Dir Lower. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court found the petitioners not guilty of the charge and vide judgment dated 29-6-2011 acquitted them. Being aggrieved of the judgment of acquittal the respondent No.1 impugned the same in appeal before this court which was accepted on 8-5-2014 and the petitioners were convicted under section 436, P.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo three years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.1,00,000 each or in default thereof to further undergo six months' S.I. The petitioners were also convicted under section 427, P.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo one year's R.I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with benefits under section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
3. After conviction, parties effected a compromise as a result, the complainant Mst. Manadia moved an application before the learned trial court for acquittal of the petitioners on the basis of compromise. Her application was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 2-10-2014, hence the instant criminal revision by the petitioners-convicts.
4. Arguments heard and record gone through.
5. No doubt section 436, P.P.C. is not compoundable and section 345, Cr.P.C. is inapplicable to compound it but equally it is an admitted fact that both the parties have amicably settled down all their differences and have resolved to lead rest of their lives in peace and tranquility. It is worth to note that there was a murder case in which husband of the respondent No.1 was charged by the petitioners' side which case too has been compromised between the parties. As a quid pro quo of compromise in the murder case Mst. Manadia and her family entered into compromise with the petitioners in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioners produced attested copies of the compromise having been reached between the parties in the murder case, on the basis of which husband of respondent Mst. Manadia has been acquitted by the learned trial court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners while arguing his case submitted before the court that in case petitioners are not acquitted in the instant ease on the basis of compromise, then the compromise having been reached between the parties in the ibid murder case, would be rendered ineffective as a result the parties would be driven back to the old blood feud and they will be back to square one.
7. Above submission of the learned counsel carries weight because the compromise in the referred murder case was not in isolation. It was bracketed with the instant case against the petitioners and if the petitioners are kept in jail to serve out their remaining sentence, then the old acrimonies and blood feud will surge again as a result the peace and tranquility, achieved through the efforts of the elder of area, will be replaced by a bloody conflict between the families, who had remained involved in a cycle of retaliatory killing in the past from which they have got rid of through compromise.
8. Of course, in letter, section 436, P.P.C. is not compoundable. However, non-compoundability of a section of law should not be read in isolation but it should be read in the background of each criminal case and a beneficial interpretation should be given to it. When the parties in the instant case have earnestly decided to live in peace by forgetting all their differences then it will be a need of the hour to acquit the petitioners in the instant case on the basis of compromise despite the non-compoundability of section 436, P.P.C. It is worth to mention that before the learned lower court application for acquittal of the petitioners was moved by the respondent herself which shows that she herself is eager in acquittal of the petitioners.
9. For what has been discussed above and keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, we found merit in the case. Therefore, the instant criminal revision is accepted. The impugned judgment dated 2-10-2014 is set aside and the petitioners are acquitted in the case against them. They be set free forthwith if not required to be detained in some other case.
Above are the reasons of our short order of the even date.
HBT/40/P Revision accepted.
0 Comments