Compromise in Compoundable offences:
NLR 1992 CrLJ 320 Shabbir Ahmed V/S The State (Lahore).
1995 MLD 1503. Muhammad Anar V/S The State (Lahore).
S.302/307 PPC. S.345 CrPC. Legal heirs of the deceased as well as the injured witness had compromised with the accused of their own free will without any threat or promise and had forgiven him in the name of Almighty Allah without accepting Diyat. On the direction of High Court Diyat money in respect of minors had been deposited in the Bank in accordance with their shares. COMPROMISE ALLOWED
1995 SCMR 1296. Ibrahim & 2 Others V/S The State.
S.302/307/34 PPC. S.345 CrPC. Major legal heirs of the deceased and the injured had waived their right to claim any compensation and had forgiven the accused. Shares of Diyat money of minor legal heirs of the deceased had been deposited in the Bank. Compromise had been effected in accordance with law and since the parties were closely related and as the object of the compromise was to create cordial relations between them Supreme Court did not press into service S.311 PPC for imposing punishment of Taxir,. Compromise was accepted and the accused were ordered to be released forthwith accordingly.
1997 PCrLJ 99. Sharafat Ali V/S The State (Lahore).
S.302/309 PPC. Father and mother of the deceased being his legal heirs had effected compromise with the accused voluntarily and had genuinely forgiven him in the name of Almighty Allah to lead their lives cordially in future. ACQUITTAL
1988 PCrLJ 1449. Nisar Ahmed V/S The State (Lahore).
S.307 PPC. Compromise. Parties compromising matter out of court and complainant side pardoning accused. Parties present in court praying for permission to compromise. Permission granted in interest of peace and good relations between parties. ACQUITTAL
NLR 2007 CrLJ 392. Ali Raza @ Kalo etc. V/S The State (Lahore DB)
S.324/353 PPC. It is settled law that in compoundable offences, compromise can be effected with victims/heirs of deceased at any stage with permission of Court. Anti-Terrorism Court would fail to exercise its jurisdiction by rejecting compromise application of convicts U/S 324 PPC on consideration that case involved police encounter case involving charge of assaulting upon police force to deter them from discharge of their duties. HIGH COURT ACCEPTED COMPROMISE.
4: Compromise in Non-Compoundable Offences:
2008 MLD 991.. Hazrat Khan V/S The State (Peshawar)
S.381-A, 411, 148 & 149 PPC. S.13 Arms Ordinance. Offences under which accused had been charged being not compoundable, compromise between the parties could not be made a ground for bail in non-compoundable offences. Section 381-A PPC carried a maximum sentence of seven years while punished provided under S.13 of Arms Ordinance also did not come within the prohibitory clause of S.497 CrPC. Grant of bail, in such like cases, was a rule and refusal of same was an exception to that rule. BAIL GRANTED.
2008 MLD 1079.. Muhammad Arshad & Others V/S The State (Lahore)
S.412/34 & 395 PPC. Offences of dacoity |U/S 395 PPC as well as dishonestly receiving stolen property in the commission of a dacoity in S.412 PPC, though did not find mention in the present table given in S.345(1) CrPC and were not compoundable, but in the present case parties had themselves voluntarily forgotten and forgiven the alleged crime and had entered into an outside court settlement. Said settlement could be considered as a ground for the grant of bail in the interest of justice and equity. Judicial notice of a compromise having taken place could be taken even in offences which were not compoundable. As no allegation was of committing dacoity by accused persons and the charge against them was about recovery recovering stolen property in a dacoity, the guilt of accused persons was a matter of further inquiry within the meaning of S.497(2). Challan had already been sent in the court for trial. No useful purpose would be served by keeping accused in jail as they were no more required to the police for the purpose of investigation. BAIL GRANTED
PLD 2003Karachi 127.Hussain Bux V/S The State (DB)
S.149/309/310302 PPC. Constructive liability, compounding of. Offence U/S 149 PPC is by way of constructive liability and when the main offence is allowed to be compounded and the persons who have taken specific part in the commission of offence are allowed to compound then the persons who are convicted on account of being merely members of the unlawful assembly are also entitled to the concession of compromise/compounding/waiver, otherwise it would not be in consonance with the principles of justice, in accordance with Injunctions of Islam as laid down in Holy Quran and Sunnah. ACQUITTAL
PLD 2003 SC 389.Saeed Ahmad V/S The State (FB)
S.302/365-A PPC. Legal representatives of the deceased child viz. his father and mother had compounded and compromised with the accused waiving their right of Qisas and Diyat and pardoning him in the name of Almighty Allah. Compromise being genuine and voluntary, permission to compound the offence U/S 302 PPC was accorded and the accused was acquitted of the charge U/S 302 PPC. Offence U/S 365-A PPC being not compoundable could not be allowed to be compounded and the case against accused thereunder had to be decided on merits. Evidence with regard to the kidnapping of the deceased child for the purpose of extorting ransom money by the accused was of unimpeachable character. Threatening letters sent by the accused to the father of the kidnapped child had been proved to be in his handwriting. Accused had arrived at the suggested place and picked up the ransom money where he was caught and received fire-arm injury at the hands of police party. Dead body of the kidnapped child was recovered at the information of the accused from the place which nobody else could have known. Minor boy aged 10/11 years had been murdered by the accused for ransom. Kidnapping for ransom was rampant in society. No mitigating circumstance for reduction in sentence was available on record. Conviction and sentence of death of accused U/S 365-A were upheld in circumstances. CONVICTION UPHELD.
PLD 2005 Lahore 328. Malik Jahangir Ahmad V/S Judge Special Court No.1
S.302(b)/324/398 PPC. S.345 CrPC. Compounding offences. Scheme and scope - Test for determining the class of offences concerning individuals only as distinguished from those which have reference to the interests of the State, has been laid down by the legislature in S.345 CrPC. Courts of law cannot go beyond the said test and substitute their own test for the same. Compounding a non-compoundable offence is against public police keeping in view the state of facts existing on the date of application to compound. Unless the provisions of S.345 CrPC are satisfied as to all matters mentioned therein, no offences shall be compounded. (2) Ac been found guilty U/S 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 by the trial court for creating terror, sense of fear and insecurity in the public at large by causing death of the deceased and injuries to the prosecution witnesses. Said judgment had been concurrently upheld up to Supreme Court. Contention that since main offence U/S 302 PPC was compoundable, offence U/S 7 of the 1997 Act, would also be considered to have become compoundable, had no force because the latter offence was more grave and severe being against society as compared to the offence against the person of deceased. Section 345 CrPC contemplated the compoundable offences and offence U/S 7 of the 1997 Act, was not included therein. Subsection (7) of section 345 CrPC had created a specific bar for compounding of offences not mentioned therein. Impugned order passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court dismissing the application of accused for permission to compound the offences being neither illegal nor arbitrary, could not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. PETITION DISMISSED.
2007 SCMR 610. Hikmatullah & 2 Others V/S The State (SC. Shariat Appellate Bench)
S.302(b)/309/311/338-E/392/394 PPC. S.345 CrPC. Complete citation under heading No.8 below)
NLR 1998 SD 682. Ghulam Rasool & Muhammad Riaz V/S The State (FSC).
S.354 PPC. Convict for offence U/S 354 PPC cannot claim acquittal on basis of compromise outside court with victim as offence U/S 354 is not compoundable. Sentence of two years’ R.I., awarded by trial court, however, reduced by FSC to sentence already undergone in view of compromise.
2004 SCMR 1170, Muhammad Rawab V/S The State (SC.FB)
S.365-A/109 PPC. Compounding offences. Legislature has laid down in S.345 CrPC the test for determining the classes of offences which concern individuals only as distinguished from those which have reference to the interests of the State and Courts of law cannot go beyond that test and substitute one of their own instead. Against public policy to compound a non-compoundable offence, keeping in view the facts existing on the date of application. No offence shall be compounded except where the provisions of S.345 CrPC are satisfied concerning all matters mentioned therein. (2) Section 365-A PPC R/W S.7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was not compoundable. Provisions of S.345 CrPC could not be stretched too far by including the non-compoundable offence therein under the garb of humanitarian grounds or any other extraneous consideration. Offences committed by the accused were not of grave and alarming nature, but the same were against the society as a whole and could not be permitted to compound by any individual or any score whatsoever. Tabulation of the offences made U/S 345 being unambiguous, would be a complete and comprehensive guide for compounding the offences. APPEAL DISMISSED.
PLD 2006 SC 53.Ghulam Farid @ Farida V/S The State (FB)
S.396/412/309/310/338-E/338-F PPC. S.345(2) CrPC. Compromise as a mitigating circumstance - Scope - Courts at all levels, without any legal impediment, while deciding the criminal cases on merits in the regular proceedings, can consider the compromise of an offender with the victim or his legal heirs as a mitigating circumstance for the purpose of awarding sentence in a non-compoundable offence, but after final disposal of a criminal matter courts cannot assume jurisdiction to re-open the case on merits in collateral proceedings arising out of miscellaneous application. (2) Question was as to whether the court on the basis of the compromise of the accused with the legal heirs of the deceased could compound the offence U/S 396 PPC which was non-compoundable in statutory law in the light of concept of forgiveness in Islam............ Offence of murder punishable with death U/S 302(a) PPC as Qisas and law, but the murder committed during the course of committing dacoity punishable with death U/S 396 PPC was not compoundable. Ayat Nos.178 and 179 of Surah Baqra of the Holy Quran also revealed that there was no conflict of the statutory law with the law of Islam regarding forgiveness, as the offence U/S 302 and offence U/S 396 PPC were entirely different and distinct offences. Offence of dacoity was not compoundable either under Islamic law or under the statutory law of the country...............Court, thus could not competently give effect to a compromise in a non-compoundable offence against the policy of law. Notwithstanding the pardon given by the legal heirs of the deceased to the accused who had been awarded death sentence U/S 396 PPC, he could not avail the benefit of S.309 and 310 PPC read with S.338-E PPC as the same could not be made applicable to give effect to a compromise in a non-compoundable offence under the law. Court in the matter of interpretation and application of the provisions of Chap. XVI PPC in respect of the offences mentioned therein or the matters ancillary or akin thereto could seek guidance from the Holy Quran and Sunnah as provided in S.338-F PPC but it could not bring a non-compoundable offence within the purview of S.345 CrPC by virtue of S.338-F PPC......... Compromise between the parties could not be treated a mitigating circumstance for the purpose of lesser punishment. LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED.
2007 PCrLJ 185.Nazir Ahmad V/S The State (Lahore)
S.396 & 460 PPC. Legal heirs of deceased though had compromised with accused but offences under S.396 & 460 PPC against accused were non-compoundable offences as provided in Schedule II of CrPC. Accused had already served out 2.1/2 years of his sentences. Legal heirs of deceased having forgiven the accused in the name of Almighty Allah, case was fit for reduction of sentences of accused. SENTENCE REDUCED TO ALREADY UNDERGONE.
2007 MLD 1269. The State V/S Irfanullah Qazi (Karachi)
S.452 PPC. S.345 & 439 CrPC.Offence under the FIR had since been compounded and the matter had been disposed of by the trial court. Considering that offence under S.452 PPC was not compoundable, show cause notice was issued to complainant and to accused as to why order to the extent of allowing compounding of the offence U/S 452 PPC should not be recalled. Parties being neighbours, were living harmoniously and behaving properly, good sense prevailed and they had patched up their differences and decided to live in peace and harmony. When heinous crime like murder were allowed to be compounded, present crime U/S 452 PPC i.e. trespass to cause hurt and assault, was rendered secondary. If court would remand the matter for decision on merits, there was no likelihood to record conviction or otherwise. Acceptance of compromise was in the larger interest of two neighbours for the benefit of congenial neighbour-hood environment. NOTICE DISCHARGED.
NLR 1995 SD 518. Mst. Kaneez Fatima etc. V/S SHO etc. (Lahore).
S.10/11 Zina Ord. FIR registered on statement of brother of female accused. Nikahnama produced to prove marriage between female and male accused. Male accused offering to seek forgiveness from complainant. FIR QUASHED
2007 PCrLJ 1433. Muhammad Akram V/S Presiding Official Spl. Court (Lahore DB)
S.10(4) Zina Ord. 1979. Execution of death sentence. Stay of execution. Petitioner was sentenced to death, appeal filed by petitioner against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the High Court and then Supreme Court and murder reference was replied in affirmative whereby death sentence awarded to petitioner was confirmed. Petitioner had exhausted all remedies available to him the under law. Offence U/S 10(4) of Offence of Zina Ordinance, 1979, being not compoundable, question of granting leave to compound offence, especially in those collateral proceedings, would not arise. Affidavit of the legal heirs of victim who had died natural death had shown that two days prior to her death she had stated before deponents that she had falsely implicated the petitioner. Said improvement which at later stage was being urged for stay of execution of death warrant, was never brought to the notice of Supreme Court either by petitioner or by legal heirs of the victim and they kept mum. No reason had been given for such a long delay spreading over one year. During all that one year, petitioner never approached Supreme Court and filed constitutional petition, a day prior to that of execution of death warrant. Petitioner and legal heirs of deceased, could not establish their bona fides in seeking relief in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. PETITION DISMISSED.
2005 SCMR 1162.Shahzad @ Shado & 3 Others V/S Judge Anti-Terrorism Court (SC.FB)
S.380/411/506 PPC. S.10(4) Zina Ord. Compounding of offence. Contention of the convicts was that the victim as well as complainant had forgiven them in the name of Allah and had entered compromise with them and had compounded the offence as such they may be acquitted. Validity. All the offences under which the petitioners were convicted were non-compoundable offences. Only offences affecting human body mentioned in Chapter XVI PPC were made compoundable by substituting S.299 to 338-H PPC vide Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Ordinance 1990 and legal heirs of deceased and victim had been allowed to compound the offence with the permission of the concerned court. Supreme Court dismissed petition finding no justification to interfere in the order of High Court. PETITION DISMISSED
1998 MLD 1704. Muhammad Zaman @ Yaqoob & Others (Lahore DB).
S.302/307/148/149 PPC. Compromise reached between the parties was voluntary and nothing existed on record to warrant punishment of the accused by way of Tazeer. Accused were, consequently, acquitted of the charges U/S 302/149, 307/149 PPC. Offence U/S 148 PPC not compoundable, conviction and sentence of accused thereunder were maintained with benefit of S.382-B CrPC.
2002 SCMR 1885.
S.326, 452, 148 & 338-E PPC. Reduction in sentence. Compounding of offence. Accused was convicted U/S 326/452/148 PPC. Complainant/injured person compounded the offence U/S 326 PPC. Offences U/S 452/148 PPC were non-compoundable offences. Effect. Findings sof the courts below regarding conviction U/S 452/148 PPC were based upon correct, elaborated and careful examination of the record and the same did not suffer from any illegality on account of misreading and non-reading of any material piece of evidence. Where the complainant had compounded the offence U/S 326 PPC the case was fit for reduction of sentence of the accused U/S 452/148 PPC. Supreme Court converted the petition for leave to appeal into appeal, sentence and conviction awarded U/S 326 PPC were set aside while that u/s 452/148 PPC were reduced to periods already undergone. APPEAL ALLOWED
2003 PCrLJ 531, Khan Said and three others (DB) V/S The State (Federal Shariat Court).
Ss. 10(3) & 11 Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.149 Crimnal procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345 Compromise victim girl as well as her father (complainant) had forgiven the accused and compromise the matter and prayed for reduction in the sentences awarded to accused by Trial Court Federal Shariat Court keeping in view the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, facts of the case and better future relation of both sides maintained the convictions of accused, but substantially reduced their sentences from 15 years R.I.to 4 years’ R.I. and from imprisonment for life to that of already undergone with reduction in fine sentences of stripes inflicted on the accused were, however, set aside in view of the abolition of punishment of whipping Act, 1996 Appeals were disposed of accordingly.
NLR 2004 SD 1195. Mustafa V/S The State (FSC)
S.10(3) & 18 Zina Ord. Offences U/S 10(3) & 18 are not compoundable and compromise between parties would not warrant acquittal of accused. Such compromise taken into consideration by FSC and sentence of five years’ RI awarded to convict reduced to two years’ RI in view of compromise between the parties. SENTENCE REDUCED.
2006 MLD 1288. Hafiz Muhammad Aslam V/S The State (Lahore)
S.377 PPC S.345 CrPC. Compromise effected between parties could be considered for the purpose of sentence, when offence was not compoundable. While maintaining conviction of accused for offence U/S 377 PPC , his sentence was reduced to two years' R.I. and sentence of fine was also reduced to Rs:1000/- SENTENCE REDUCED.
2006 PCrLJ 1169. The Registrar V/S Imran Haider (Karachi)
S.367, 368, 336 & 337-A(I) PPC. Compounding of offence. Consideration of goodwill. Scope. Accused who were charged for offences U/S 336/337-A(I)/367/368 PPC were acquitted by Additional Sessions Judge, however, while noticing that offence U/S 367 & 368 PPC were not compoundable, proceeded to hold that for promoting goodwill between the parties, he had allowed them to compromise. Validity. Consideration of goodwill and amity would always be there whenever a matter was not per se compoundable between the parties and Court’s interven.
0 Comments