2023 MLD 395
Compounding of offence---Scope---Parties, during the trial, moved application under S. 345, Cr.P.C., along with compromise deed and stated that they had amicably settled the matter outside the court---None of the legal heirs of the deceased had contested the compromise but prosecutor had raised objection that the compromise could not be effected to the extent of the minors without payment to them of the differential amount between the payable Diyat in the year 2012 and what was payable when the compromise was being effected between the other legal heirs of deceased---Validity---Record showed that one widow and three minors were the surviving legal heirs of the deceased---According to the statement of natural guardian of the minors before the Trial Court, she raised no objection if petitioners/appellants were also acquitted of charges, since she had already received amount of Rs.22,35,500/-in the shape of Defence Saving Certificates as Diyat on behalf of the minors of the deceased in the year 2012---Diyat was not a punishment, its enhancement for the legal heirs was not their legal right when it had already been exercised by them drawing all the amount of Diyat to their share---No new right had accrued to them---Only exception through which a compromise could be recalled was that it was forcefully affected as free consent was the main ingredient of such ground which was apparently missing---Once a compromise always a compromise, therefore, it could not be rescinded by any strange interpretation of law in order to proactively protect the minors since the interest of the minors could not be watched over and above their entitlement regardless of the fact that offence of murder was committed by more than one person and convicted though might have different financial status---In the absence of any documentary evidence to prove the financial status, no such finding could be given---In the present case, the compromise was not a new one but reaffirmation of the old compromise entered with other accused persons, the benefit of which could be extended to the present accused petitioner, therefore, the payment of differential amount to the minor was not legally permissible-
0 Comments