PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 135
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Muhammad Tariq Nadeem, J.
MUHAMMAD AHMAD JAVED--Appellant
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. A. No. 1053 of 2022, heard on 25.1.2023.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----Ss. 345 & 410--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 376/11--Criminal Appeal--Compromise at appeal stage--Acquittal of--Complainant and victim, present in the Court, have sworn their affidavits before High Court, they have forgiven the appellant and have no objection if the appellant is acquitted of the charge--Through the offence, for which the appellant has been handed down a guilty verdict, is not compoundable yet the factum of a neighborly out-of-court settlement between the gatherings has consistently been viewed as a saving grace, bringing harmony and congruity among the battling parties--Conviction and sentence awarded, set-aside and he is acquitted of the charge--Appeal accepted. [Para 3 & 4] A, B & C
2003 SCMR 663; 2011 MLD 1468 ref.
M/s. Saeed Ahmad Farrukh and Tariq Zulfiqar Ahmad, Advocates for Appellant.
Mr. Adnan Latif Sheikh, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Mehar Muhammad Sajjad, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 25.1.2023.
Judgment
Through this appeal filed under Section 410, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Ahmad Javed appellant has called in question vires of judgment dated 31.10.2022 handed down by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianchannu in private complaint under Sections 376/11, PPC connected with case FIR No. 425 dated 27.09.2019 under Sections 376/511, PPC, registered at Police Station Saddar Mianchannu, District Khanewal, whereby at the conclusion of trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:
Under Section 376(0, PPC read with Section 511, PPC:
10 years R.I. along with fine of Rs. 50,000/-; in default thereof to further undergo S.I. for 01-month. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also given to the appellant.
2. Contentions heard. File gone through.
3. Today, Muhammad Javed Iqbal complainant (PW.l) and Iqra Bibi victim (PW.2), present in the Court, duly identified by their learned counsel, have sworn their affidavits before this Court, wherein they both have stated on oath that they have forgiven the appellant and have no objection if the appellant is acquitted of the charge. Their affidavits have been placed on record as “Mark-A” and “Mark-B”.
4. Though the offence, for which the appellant has been handed down a guilty verdict, is not compoundable yet the factum of a neighborly out-of-Court settlement between the gatherings has consistently been viewed as a saving grace, bringing harmony and congruity among the battling parties and the Courts should offer regard to the gatherings’ will to cover their axes. It further reveals that the complainant and the victim have sworn their affidavits and made statements in this Court with free will and consent as well as without any coercion and duress, therefore, by relying upon the case-law titled as “Ghulam Shabbir v. The State” (2003 SCMR 663) and “Aamir and 2 others v. The State and another” (2011 MLD 1468), Crl. Appeal No. 1053 of 2022 filed by the appellant is accepted, conviction and sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 31.10.2022, is set-aside and he is acquitted of the charge leveled against him. He shall be released from jail forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.
(K.Q.B.) Appeal accepted
0 Comments