Compromise
& Non compoundable offences;
* Conviction and sentence for the non -compound able offence had to be recorded separately and could not be implied---Matter of conviction and sentence for the non -compound able offence had become a past and closed transaction---compromise between the parties for the compound able offence should not have been rejected in such circumstances. 2016 SCMR 1190 IRFAN Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF
* Conviction and death sentence recorded under S. 302(b), P.P.C. and S. 7(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---offence under S. 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was an independent one, which was non -compound able, thus the sentence awarded under said provision of law was independent to other sentences under S. 302(b), P.P.C. etc., which may be compound able in nature---In view of the bar contained in S. 345(7), Cr.P.C., conviction of an accused under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 would remain intact despite compromise in other sentences in compound able offence . 2016 SCMR 291 KAREEM NAWAZ KHAN Versus The STATE through PGP
* Offence under S.436, P.P.C., though was not compound able, 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 compromise d---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 compound able, but non -compound ability 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 -compound ability---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. PLD 2016 Pesh. 26 IJAZ Versus Mst. MANADIA
* Compromise was arrived between accused and legal heirs of the deceased, according to which, legal heirs of the deceased had forgiven accused and had waived their right of qisas in the name of Almighty Allah---Heirs of the deceased deposed that they had no objection to acquittal of accused for the murder of their son---Trial Court had verified that said compromise had been entered into voluntarily and without fear---High Court was satisfied that legal heirs of the deceased had effected compromise with regard to murder of the deceased, and had resorted to amicable relations, to promote harmony and good-will between the parties, and to ensure peace and tranquility in the vicinity---compromise was accepted for murder of deceased---offence under S.377, P.P.C. was not compound able, but as legal heirs of the deceased had pardoned accused for murder of their son, which was a major offence , courts of law had always taken lenient view with regard to akin offence s falling under the category of non -compound able offences---compromise having been effected in the regular proceedings, High Court could consider the compromise as a mitigating circumstance in the matter of quantum of sentence awarded in the non -compound able offence i.e. under S.377, P.P.C.---Accused had admitted that he had committed a shameful act; that his conscience pinched him that he deserved punishment; and that he felt repentant---Such was an extraordinary extenuating circumstance for taking a lenient view in the matter of sentence under S.377, P.P.C.---Accused had undergone two years, three months and 27 days incarceration---Sentence already undergone by accused under S.377, P.P.C., would be more than sufficient---Impugned judgment to the extent of conviction and sentence under S.302(b), P.PC., was set aside and accused was acquitted of the charge of murder---Conviction of accused under S.377, P.P.C., was maintained, but taking lenient view in awarding punishment under said section, sentence already undergone by accused, would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. 2016 MLD 48 QASIM IJAZ Versus State
* Accused sought their acquittal on the basis of compromise effected between the parties. Offence under S. 495, P.P.C. was an independent offence which had its own punishment in addition to punishment for causing Qatl or causing hurt or attempt to cause Qatl or hurt therefore, such offence could not be merged into main offence ---When one was tried for two different offence s and awarded punishments in both of them, then competence of one to compound one offence could not affect legality of sentence awarded for other independent offence by competent court of law---Likelihood of failure of prosecution to prove charge was no ground to make a non -compound able offence as compound able---Attempt to compound an offence , even if failed, could not bring any consequence on merits of the case however, failure of prosecution/complainant to establish charge could give certain rights to accused against complainant/prosecution---High Court accepted compromise to the extent of convictions awarded under Ss. 302(b), 337-A(i) & 337-F(i), P.P.C. while for the offence under S. 459, P.P.C. the same was declined---Application was allowed accordingly. 2016 MLD 580 MOHARRAM alias MAROO Versus State
* Offence under S.436, P.P.C., though was not compound able, 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 compromise d---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 compound able, but non -compound ability 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 -compound ability---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. PLD 2015 Pesh. 223 IJAZ Versus Mst. MANADIA
* Compromise applications were filed by complainant/legal heirs of deceased during pendency of appeals---offence under S.302, P.P.C. was compound able by legal heirs of the victim, whereas offence under S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, had not been shown in the first and second column of table of S.345, Cr.P.C.---Such offence was not compound able under the provisions of S. 345, Cr.P.C., as provisions of said section, could not be stretched too far by including therein a non -compound able offence under the garb of humanitarian grounds; or on the ground that accused persons belonged to Rangers Force---Manner, in which brutal murder of the deceased was committed, caused sensation in society---Such offence being against society, it could not be permitted to be compound ed by an individual/legal heir of the deceased on any score---Application filed for compound ing of offence being without legal force, was dismissed, in circumstances. 2015 PCrLJ 628 SHAHID ZAFAR Versus State
* Accused was charged inter alia with an offence under Ss.6 & 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which did not find place in any of the columns of the Table appended to the provisions of S.345, Cr.P.C., detailing the compound able offence s---Allowing prayer to transfer case from Anti-Terrorism Court on ground of compromise would literally mean converting a non -compound able offence into a compound able offence , which was a total novel concept; and not recognized by the law---Law had clearly limited the cases which could be compound able/ compromise d and did not provide any scope for converting a non -compound able offence into a compound able, merely because the parties had entered into a compromise ---Such an action would not only frustrate the provisions of S.345, Cr.P.C., but would make all offence s as compound able which would be against the public policy and beyond the competence of court, and could not be allowed---Neither jurisdiction could be conferred on a court which had no jurisdiction to adjudicate an issue, nor a court could be deprived of its jurisdiction for the convenience or at the request of the parties---Accused had killed his sister on account of her free will marriage in the court room, where justice was dispensed and people had confidence to be treated in accordance with law---Anti-Terrorism Court, had rightly rejected request for transferring the case to the Court of Session, in circumstances. 2015 PCrLJ 438 JAVED IQBAL Versus State
* Human life was the most valuable of all the things---Islam as a religion of humanity attached utmost sanctity to human life---Murder of a human being was the greatest sin after the sin of 'shirk' (Assigning partners with Almighty Allah), and was unpardonable, particularly when committed during the course of dacoity in view of the bar under S.345(7), Cr.P.C.---Islamic Sharia had divided the punishments for crimes into three categories; Hudood; Qisas; and Ta'zir---Said punishments, which had been determined by the Holy Quran and the Sunnah for crimes, were called Hudood---Punishments for crime, involving the rights of individuals, were called as Qisas; and the punishments for crimes, which had not been fixed by the Holy Quran or Sunnah, but had been left to discretion of the rulers and the Judges, were called as Tazir---Where compromise between the parties had been reached in non -compound able offence s during pendency of the appeal, the courts had taken the compromise as a ground for reduction in the quantum of sentence only, but in the matters of bail, same could only be considered as one of the facts, alongside the facts and circumstances of the case, for determining whether bail be granted or not---Any person, who was an accused of a non -compound able offence , was not entitled to claim bail as a matter of right on the sole strength of compromise ---offence of murder, punishable with death under S.302(a), P.P.C., and under S.302(b), P.P.C. as Tazir, though was compound able under the law, but where murder had taken place during the course of committing a dacoity, punishable with death under S.396, P.P.C., or an offence under S.392, P.P.C., was not compound able. 2014 PCrLJ 178 MUHAMMAD AYUB Versus State
* Accused was convicted by Trial Court and sentenced to death penalty---During pendency of appeal compromise was effected between the parties. Non e of the ingredients of S.311 or 338-E, P.P.C., were attracted as neither in F.I.R., charge or in entire prosecution evidence, there was even any suggestion by complainant or prosecution regarding commission of offence in brutal or shocking manner---No impediment existed in accepting compromise reached at between parties in respect of offence under S.302, P.P.C. which was compound able---High Court accepted the compromise and compound ed the offence under S.302, P.P.C.---Accused was acquitted in circumstances. 2014 PCrLJ 1454 ZULFIQAR ALI KACHELO alias ALI Versus State
* Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was a special law---Private complainant or legal heirs had no right to compound the scheduled offence s---Said offence s were against the State but not only against individuals---Second Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1998, provided that offence s punishable under Ss.353 & 377, P.P.C. were not compound able---Complainant was not competent to compound the offence under S.13 of Arms Ordinance, 1965---compromise did not constitute valid ground for acquittal of the accused---Trial Court was not vested with the powers to act upon the statements of the complainant and minor victim---Trial Court illegally acquitted the accused on the basis of compromise in non -compound able offence s---Judgment/order of Trial Court was illegal and without lawful authority and caused miscarriage of justice---Impugned judgment and order of acquittal was set aside and case was remanded for decision afresh. 2013 MLD 1872 State Versus KHAISTA RAHMAN
* Complainant appeared to be fully satisfied with the terms of the compromise and did not oppose bail plea of accused persons---Although offence s mentioned in the F.I.R. were non -compound able but compromise /reconciliation between parties was a redeeming feature, which brought peace and harmony in the society---Courts always respected enthusiasm and passion of parties to compound the offence , whether the same was compound able or not---Will of parties to compound the offence had to be respected and given assent to, so that they might bear the fruit thereof---Ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused persons was confirmed in circumstances. 2013 PCrLJ 1458 MUHAMMAD JAMIL Versus State
* Compromise even in non -compound able offence s was a redeeming factor, which brought peace, harmony and coherence in the society, and it might have far-reaching positive effects in the lives of warring parties. PLD 2013 Lah. 651 ALI RAZA Versus State
* Although offence alleged was not compound able, but eagerness of the parties to settle their dispute by executing an agreement had to be given a sense of respect, so that they might harvest benefit thereof---Complainant and his wife were doctors by profession, hence educated persons, who understood the terms of the compromise well---If loss sustained by the complainant at the hands of accused persons was made good to his satisfaction, then there might be no harm in admitting accused persons to bail---Complainant had expressly stated that on account of the compromise he did not intend to prosecute the accused persons further---Accused persons were admitted to bail in such circumstances with the observation that complainant would be within his right to lodge a request for withdrawal of bail, if the accused side showed hesitation in complying with the terms and conditions of the compromise agreement. PLD 2013 Lah. 651 ALI RAZA Versus State
* Despite compromise between the parties, accused persons could not be acquitted as they had been convicted for offence s, which were not compound able under statutory law as contained in S.345, Cr.P.C.---compromise could not legally be effected in a case where accused had been convicted for an offence under S.18 of offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979---High Court was not competent to give effect to a compromise in the non -compound able offence s, which had been committed by accused persons as the same was against the law as well as Public Policy---compromise , however could be considered as a mitigating circumstance for the purpose of awarding sentence in non -compound able offence s in appropriate cases, except in heinous offence s which were considered crime against society---To compound , non -compound able offence was against Public Policy, keeping in view the state of facts existing on the date of application to compound ---No offence s would be compound ed, except where the provisions of S.345, Cr.P.C. were satisfied as to all matters mentioned therein. PLD 2013 FSC 42 AMJAD ALI Versus State
* Complainant, though had compromise d with accused persons, but offence against accused persons was not compound able---Accused persons were young men and were first offenders and bread-earners for their families---Conviction and sentence as awarded to accused under S.12 of offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 to 10 years' R.I. with fine, was maintained, but while maintaining his conviction under S.377, P.P.C., his sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to 10 years' R.I., with fine---Conviction of co-accused under S.12 of the offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, was also maintained, but his sentence was modified from 10 years' R.I. to the terms already undergone, with fine. 2012 YLR 752 JAHAN ZEB Versus State
* Petitioner/complainant had assailed the vires of order passed by the Magistrate, whereby respondents/ accused persons were acquitted on the ground that a compromise was effected between the complainant and accused persons at the time of hearing of bail petition---Schedule II of Cr.P.C., had provided that an offence punishable under S.420, P.P.C. was compound able with the permission of the court, whereas the offence punishable under Ss.468/471, P. P. C. was not compound able---compromise at the bail stage did not constitute a valid ground for acquittal of accused---Trial Court was not vested with the powers to act upon the statement allegedly made during hearing of bail with regard to compromise and acquitting accused on the basis of alleged compromise in a non -compound able offence ---Order acquitting accused, in circumstances, was patently illegal and without lawful authority---Such orders would cause miscarriage of justice and should not be left unnoticed by the High Court while exercising constitutional jurisdiction, merely on the ground that an appeal was not preferred against the said order---Such void orders would not exist in the eyes of law; and could be directly assailed through constitutional petition---Order passed by the Magistrate acquitting accused persons, was set aside, in circumstances. 2011 YLR 876 RASHEEDA BIBI Versus MUHAMMAD ILYAS REHAN
* Both the complainant as well as the victim appeared before High Court at the time of arguments and voluntarily made a statement that they did not want to pursue the case any more and had no objection if the accused were acquitted of the charge---Prosecution case after having been examined from each and every aspect, was not likely to succeed---Reasons advanced by Trial Court for convicting the accused also had no weight---offence charged against the accused was non -compound able and the question was whether compromise could be effected in a non -compound able offence ---compromise was meant to promote harmonious living and maintain cordial relations between the parties---Accused were acquitted in circumstances and their appeal was allowed accordingly. 2011 MLD 1468 AAMIR Versus State
* Accused persons were sentenced to death on each count, who sought permission to compound the offence. Prosecution witnesses had given quite accurate account of the incident---Ocular evidence sustained the test of cross examination---Testimonies of eve witnesses, except some insignificant discrepancies, had not been shattered---Eye witnesses had been believed by two Courts below and such appreciation of evidence and conclusions drawn therefrom were not erroneous---Alleged weak or non proof of motive was not fatal to the case of prosecution---Role assigned to and performed by each of the accused had been clearly described by eye witnesses, which when tested on the touchstone of medical evidence was substantially corroborated---Supreme Court declined to bring the case within the ambit of either an unseen occurrence or a case for benefit of doubt to the accused had been made out---Supreme Court declined to grant leave to compromise the offence ---Leave to appeal was refused. PLD 2010 SC 938 NASEEM AKHTAR Versus State
* Muslim and a non -Muslim and even non -Muslims inter se can compound the offence ---Section 345, Cr. P. C. which regulates compound ing of offence , does not provide for any competence or otherwise of a person who wants to enter into a compromise , and it also does not restrict a Muslim or a non -Muslim from entering into such compromise ---Qualification for entertaining an application for compromise is only the compound ability of the offence and nothing more. PLD 2010 Quetta 30 MUHAMMAD AZAM alias ASLAM Versus State
* Accused had allegedly taken the complainant inside the school and tried to commit sodomy with him after removing his "Shalwar"---Complainant had compromise d with the accused voluntarily outside the court---offence under S. 377, P.P.C. was not compound able under S. 345(1) Cr.P.C, but the factum of compromise could be considered as a ground for grant of bail in the interest of justice and equity---If the complainant party was no longer willing to prosecute a matter any further, then court would not compel the parties to do so, as the saying goes, "you can take the horse till the water but you cannot make him drink"---Judicial notice of compromise in bail matters could be taken even in non -compound able offence s---Ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused was confirmed in circumstances. 2010 PCrLJ 1482 MUHAMMAD MAKKI Versus State
* Judicial notice of compromise in non -compound able offence s, not mentioned in S. 345(1) Cr.P.C., can be taken and the same may be considered as a ground for grant of bail in the interest of justice and equity. 2010 PCrLJ 1482 MUHAMMAD MAKKI Versus State
* Sections 457 & 380, P.P.C. and S.14 of offence s Against Property -(Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, were non -compound able---Magistrate had to apply his judicial mind while passing such order, which was conspicuously lacking, and it was not ipsi dixit of the police to decide the fate of a criminal case---Impugned order being not speaking one, no justification of such an order was found from the text of impugned order---Impugned order was set aside and case was remanded to the court of Judicial Magistrate, with the direction to pass proper, legal and speaking order afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the applicant, his witnesses and State Counsel. 2010 YLR 40 MEENHAN KHAN Versus S.P. INVESTIGATION HYDERABAD
* Compromise arrived at between accused and the legal heirs of deceased, would certainly promote harmonious living and maintain cordial relations between the parties---Conviction and sentence of accused persons recorded under S.302(b) P.P.C., were set aside and they were acquitted of the said charge on the basis of compromise --offence under S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 though was non -compound able, as the parties had entered into compromise in substantive/main offence of Qatl-e-Amd the same was also allowed and accused were also acquitted from the charge under S.7(1)(c) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Conviction and sentence of accused persons were set aside and they were acquitted of the charge on the basis of compromise ---Accused were ordered to be released. 2009 YLR 1526 GHULAM ABBAS Versus State
* Offence s under which accused had been charged being not compound able, compromise between the parties could not be made a ground for bail in non -compound able offence s---Section 381-A, P.P.C.' carried a maximum sentence of seven years while punishment provided under S.13, West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 also did not come within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Grant of bail, in such like cases, was a rule and refusal of same was an exception to that rule---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. 2008 MLD 991 HAZRAT KHAN Versus State
* Accused were convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment and fine---During pendency of appeal filed by accused against their conviction and sentence, a compromise was arrived at between the parties---Accused were convicted and sentenced under Ss.302, 364-A & 109 P.P.C., out of which S.364-A P.P.C. was not compound able---State Counsel had stated that accused persons had served more than 10 years in jail and if the sentence in a non -compound able offence under S.364-A P.P.C. was reduced to one already undergone, he would have no objection---compromise arrived at between the parties in the case under S.302(a) P.P.C. was accepted and sentence and conviction awarded thereunder was set aside, while their conviction under S.364-A P.P.C. was upheld, but their sentence was reduced to the one already undergone on each count---Fine of Rs.50,000 was also reduced to Rs.5,000. 2008 MLD 886 MUKHTAR ALI Versus State
* Courts, no doubt, at all levels without any legal impediment, while deciding 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 question of sentence in a non -compound able 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. PLD 2007 SC 447 MUHAMMAD AKHTAR alias HUSSAIN Versus State
* Whatever be the nature and status of an offence but for the purpose of the compromise it would be seen as to whether the offence of the section of law for which the compromise was requested was compound able under the law or not---compound able offence s had been mentioned in S.345(1), Cr.P.C.---offence under S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which was punishable with death, was not mentioned in S.345(1), Cr.P.C. in the category of compound able offence s---Both the Courts below, therefore, had rightly disallowed the compromise ---Question of reduction of sentence of accused in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties was also considered---Present matter before Supreme Court was not in the regular proceedings---Convictions and sentences of accused under S.302/34, P.P.C. and S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, had already been kept intact up to the level of Supreme Court---When once the findings had been given on merits by Supreme Court, then it would not be appropriate to enter the merits of the case against to consider the reduction of sentence in an offence which was not compound able---Findings of the Courts below by not granting permission to compound the offence under S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were in accordance with law particularly in view of the bar as contained in subsection (7) of section 345, Cr.P.C.---Impugned order having no illegality did not deserve any interference---Leave to appeal was declined accordingly. PLD 2007 SC 447 MUHAMMAD AKHTAR alias HUSSAIN Versus State
* Offence under S.7(e) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, being non -compound able, any compromise between the parties was of no consequence---Accused had not led any evidence to establish their friendship with the abductee or regarding the complicity of the abductee himself in the crime---Entire ransom amount had been recovered from accused who were arrested by the police from the house on the pointation of abductee---Abductee had no motive for false implication of accused in the case---Incriminating recoveries from the accused including the ransom amount, pistols with live cartridges, mobile phone and motorcycle of abductee, had further connected the accused with the offence ---Investigating Officer in the peculiar circumstances of the case could not possibly join persons from the public in recovery proceedings, even otherwise police, witnesses were as good witnesses as other witnesses---Recoveries had corroborated the evidence furnished by the prosecution witnesses---Even if the recoveries had not been proved in a case of kidnapping or abduction for ransom, the determining factor was the object behind the crime---Conviction and sentence of accused were upheld in circumstances. 2007 PCRLJ 1097 USMAN ALI Versus State
* Legal heirs of deceased though had compromise d with accused but offence s under Ss.396 & 460, P.P.C. against accused were non -compound able offence s as provided in Sched-II of Cr.P.C.---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---Convictions of accused were upheld, however, sentences were reduced to the period already undergone by him. 2007 PCRLJ 185 NAZIR AHMAD Versus State
* Court, in the matter of interpretation and application of provisions of Chap. XVI, P.P.C. in respect of the offence s mentioned therein or the matters ancillary or akin thereto, can seek guidance from the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah as provided in S.338-F, P.P.C. but it cannot bring a non -compound able offence within the purview of S.345, Cr.P.C. by virtue of S.338-F, P.P.C. for the purpose of compound ing it on the basis of compromise . PLD 2006 SC 53 GHULAM FARID alias FARIDA Versus THE STATE
* Offence s which were compound able in Islam had also been made compound able under the statutory law and in compound able offence s it was permissible for the Courts to give effect to the compromise between the parties at any stage of the proceedings before or after the final conclusion of the matter whereas a compromise in non -compound able offence s could not be given legal cover at any stage---Offence of murder punishable with death under S.302(a), P.P.C. as Qisas and under S.302(b), P.P.C. as Tazir was compound able under the law, but the murder committed during the course of committing dacoity punishable with death under S.396, P.P.C. was not compound able ---Ayat Nos. 178 and 179 of Surah Baqara of the Holy Qur'an also revealed that there was no conflict of the statutory law with the law of Islam regarding forgiveness, as the offence under S.302, P.P.C. and offence under. S.396, P.P.C. were entirely different and distinct offence s---offence of dacoity was not compound able either under Islamic law or under the statutory law of the Country---Concept of right of "Afw" and "Badal-e-Sulh" in a case of Qatl-i-Amd punishable under S.302(a), P.P.C. as Qisas can also be exercised with permission of Court in a case in which punishment of death is awarded as Tazir under S.302(b), P.P.C., but the concept of "Afw" and "Badl-e-Sulh" under the existing law had not been made applicable to a case under S.396, P.P.C. in which death was awarded for murder taken place during the course of committing dacoity---Court, thus, could not competently give effect to a compromise in a non -compound able 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 under S.396, P.P.C. he could not avail the benefit of Ss.309 and 310, P.P.C. read with S.338-E, P.P.C. as the same could not be made applicable to give effect to a compromise in a non -compound able offence under the law---Court in the matter of interpretation and application of the provisions of Chap XVI, P.P.C. in respect of the offence s mentioned therein or the matters ancillary or akin thereto could seek guidance from the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah as provided in S.338-F, P.P.C. but it could not bring a non -compound able offence within the purview of S.345, Cr.P.C. by virtue of S.338-F, P.P.C.---Supreme Court while upholding the judgment of High Court whereby conviction and sentence of accused were maintained, had already dismissed the petition for leave to appeal---Present petition had arisen out of the proceedings in a miscellaneous application moved by the accused for his acquittal on the basis of his compromise with the legal heirs of the deceased, therefore, in these proceedings High Court could not possibly re-open the case on merits in exercise of its powers under S.561-A, Cr. P.C.---Supreme Court also was not supposed to undertake such an exercise under Article 187 of the Constitution and consider the question relating to the quantum of sentence on the basis of compromise between the parties in such a heinous offence , which was considered a crime against the society---compromise between the parties could not be treated a mitigating circumstance for the purpose of lesser punishment---Leave to appeal was declined to accused accordingly. PLD 2006 SC 53 GHULAM FARID alias FARIDA Versus THE STATE
* Compromise as a mitigating circumstance. 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 -compound able 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. PLD 2006 SC 53 GHULAM FARID alias FARIDA Versus THE STATE
* Statements of said defence witnesses were not worthy of credence, especially when it was a partial compromise having not been entered into by all legal heirs of deceased and such a compromise , could not be blessed by the Court---Defence plea, in circumstances, was ruled out of consideration---Accused remained fugitive from law for long eight months which also indicated the guilty conscience of accused---Accused, who had committed intentional murder of his real father in broad daylight in a callous manner, seemed to be an unscrupulous person and did not deserve any leniency in the quantum of sentence---Conviction and sentences recorded against accused by the Trial Court, were maintained---Death sentence of accused was confirmed and murder reference was answered in affirmative. 2006 PCRLJ 1146 MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus State
* Compromise effected between parties could be considered for the purpose of sentence, when offence was not compound able---While maintaining conviction of accused for offence under S.377, P.P.C., his sentence was reduced to two years' R.I. and sentence of fine was also reduced to Rs.1000. 2006 MLD 1288 Hafiz MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus State
* All the offence s under which the petitioners were convicted were non -compound able offence s--Only offence s affecting human body mentioned in Ch. XVI, P.P.C. were made compound able by substituting Ss. 299 to 338-H 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 rejecting the petition for compound ing of offence s---Principles. 2005 SCMR 1162 SHAHZAD alias SHADO and 3 others Versus JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, FAISALABAD
* Compromise between the parties manifestly was the outcome of the pressure and influence exerted by the accused Councillor who was being supported by the feudal lords of the area and he had even made it impossible for the senior supervisory police officer of the District despite direction of High Court to produce him in Court and he at his own pleasure had opted to move High Court for pre-arrest bail---Even otherwise, offence s under Ss.379, 506, para. second & 163, P.P.C. were not compound able and the local police while registering the case on the complaint of the Doctor had not with mala fide intention mentioned the said sections of the P.P.C.---non e of the basic conditions for grant of pre-arrest bail was available in favour of accused, rather the whole district administration was playing in his hands---Most important criterion in this regard was the satisfaction of the Court that the case was or not fit for bail---Accused had even slapped on the face of the complainant Doctor on his refusal to give the required Medical Certificate---Person like the accused must be dealt with sternly in order to make the country people feel that they were living in such country where the law had edge over everything--Pre-arrest bail was refused to accused in circumstances. PLD 2003 Lah. 403 RANA ZULFIQAR ALI Versus THE STATE
* Grant of bail on basis of compromise in a non -compound able offence ---Accused was caught red-handed while stealing and was detained by the complainant in the house and thereafter was produced before the police---Prosecution story was supported by the other inmates of the house---offence against the accused under S.457, P.P.C. was punishable with sentence of fourteen years'imprisonment---Accused had sought bail on the ground that a compromise had been arrived at between the parties---Where compromise between the parties had been reached in non -compound able offence during the pendency of the appeal, the Courts had taken the compromise as a ground for reduction in sentence only---compromise in bail matter had by and large, been considered as one of the factors, alongside the facts of the case, for determining whether bail be granted, but same could not be made its sole basis---compromise in non -compound able offence , should not entitle the accused to bail, but could be considered as one of the factors for its grant--Even otherwise the effect of compromise in non -compound able offence s, could not be taken at par, even at bail stage, with that of compound able offence s, which ultimately would result in the acquittal of the accused--Since the merits of the case against the accused did not justify the grant of bail to him, the compromise between the parties could not be taken to entitle the accused to bail. 2001 PCRLJ 1493 RAHIM HAYAT QURESHI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
* Offence can be compound ed between a Muslim end non -Muslim and even between non -Muslims inter se--Section 345, Cr.P.C. under which compounding of offence is regulated does not provide for any competence or otherwise of a person entering into a compromise , nor does it restrict a Muslim or a. non -Muslim from entering into such compromise ---Only qualification for entertaining such application is the compound ability of the offence and nothing more. 2001 PCRLJ 318 ABDUL MAJEED Versus STATE
* Pending appeal against conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court, compromise was reached between the accused and legal heirs of deceased whereby "AFW" was granted to accused by heirs of deceased in the name of God and heirs of deceased had prayed that accused be acquitted--Genuineness of the compromise was verified and same was found to be genuine and voluntary---compromise reached between the parties though was valid and of voluntary nature, but such a compromise , would not necessarily entail an automatic acquittal of convict because provisions of 5.311, P.P.C. had envisaged situations where, despite compromise reached between the parties, accused was still liable to punishment by way of "Ta'zir"---One such situation in which such punishment could be awarded was where offence in question amounted to or involved "Farad Fil ,Arz"---Accused was guilty of killing a police constable whose only fault was that he was a member of a police party which had gone to the house of accused on receiving information that accused was keeping illicit arms in his house and when commanded by head of the police party to open the door of his house and to permit search therein, had opened fire on them with assistance of his companions which had resulted in death of the police constable---Said act/conduct of accused amounted to "Farad Fil Arz"---Conviction and punishment recorded by Trial Court against accused under S.302/34, P.P.C. though was set aside, but he was directed to suffer 10 years' R.I. under S.311, P.P.C.---Other offence s against accused under S.186/353/34, P.P.C. being non -compound able, conviction and punishments under Ss.186, & 353/34, P.P.C. were maintained. 2000 PCRLJ 1841 ABDUL GHAFOOR Versus STATE
* Compromise in non -compound able offence s--Judicial notice of a compromise having taken place can be taken even in offence s which are not compound able. 1999 PCRLJ 1107 MIANGUL SHAHZADA JAHANZEB Versus DEPUTY LAND COMMISSIONER, SWAT AT MINGORA
* Allegation made in the F.I.R. and the evidence collected during investigation should be given due weight in bail matter in deciding prima facie nature of the offence made out against an accused person and the punishment provided therefor---No presumption should be permitted to be raised that the offence being compound able may at some stage be compound ed and such presumption shall not be made a ground for grant of bail in non -bailable offence s. 1994 SCMR 1064 MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN Versus GHULAM AHMAD ALIAS JALLAH KHAN
* Compromise even in non -compound able offence s being recognized ground for reduction in sentence, sentence of four years' R.I. was reduced to one already undergone. 1991 PCRLJ 2296 IJAZ ALEEM Versus THE STATE
* Prosecutrix and her mother, supporting prosecution--Two eyewitnesses named in F.I.R. given up as won-over--Complainant, father of prosecutrix resiling from his previous version given in F.I.R. and private complaint and also filing application for withdrawal of complaint on basis of compromise between parties--Refusal of complainant to support prosecution story even though it involved his daughter, held, would adversely affect case of prosecution in circumstances. 1987 PCRLJ 1034 LASHKAR Versus STATE
* Though factum of compromise having been effected between parties stood admitted and seemed to be, genuine yet law, held, did not, warrant acquittal of convict merely on such account in a non compound able offence --Appeal decided on merits. 1986 MLD 1111 MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus STATE
* Withdrawal of appeal sought by parties on account of their compromise in civil and criminal litigation-One of offence s allegedly non -compound able but trial Court recorded acquittal--Besides compromise in civil suit parties patching up their differences in criminal case also-Appeal allowed to be withdrawn in view of special circumstances of case. 1984 PCRLJ 1271 RASHID BIBI Versus ABDUL KARIM
Compromise & Mitigating Circumstances;
* Compromise having been effected in the regular proceedings, High Court could consider the compromise as a mitigating circumstance in the matter of quantum of sentence awarded in the non-compoundable offence i.e. under S.377, P.P.C.---Accused had admitted that he had committed a shameful act; that his conscience pinched him that he deserved punishment; and that he felt repentant---Such was an extraordinary extenuating circumstance for taking a lenient view in the matter of sentence under S.377, P.P.C.---Accused had undergone two years, three months and 27 days incarceration---Sentence already undergone by accused under S.377, P.P.C., would be more than sufficient---Impugned judgment to the extent of conviction and sentence under S.302(b), P.PC., was set aside and accused was acquitted of the charge of murder---Conviction of accused under S.377, P.P.C., was maintained, but taking lenient view in awarding punishment under said section, sentence already undergone by accused, would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. 2016 MLD 48 QASIM IJAZ Versus State
* Complainant/father of deceased, had compounded the murder of his son with accused by extending him pardon---Legal representative of lady deceased had not effected any compromise---Taking into consideration the fact that accused had a minor daughter, who had already lost her mother; and in case of maintaining the death sentence, she would also lose her father as mitigating circumstance, conviction of accused under S.302(b), P.P.C. was maintained on two counts, but his sentence was reduced from death to imprisonment for life. 2015 YLR 1448 QASIM Versus The STATE
* Plea of partial compromise and relationship between the parties could hardly be considered for mitigating sentence---No mitigating circumstance was available in favour of accused---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances . 2012 YLR 953 MUHAMMAD ISMAIL Versus State
* Counsel for accused could not produce any thing in writing regarding compromise allegedly arrived at between the parties; even otherwise offence was not compoundable---No mitigating circumstance could be pointed out which could warrant reduction of sentence of the accused---Trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced accused, in circumstances . 2012 PCrLJ 530 MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus State
* Offence, though was not compoundable and accused was not entitled to bail on the ground of compromise, but on the principle of `forget and forgive' the compromise could be taken as a mitigating circumstance while considering the request of post-arrest bail of an accused---Record had revealed that accused could at the most be booked for an offence under S.411, P.P.C. which did not fall within the restrictive clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances . 2009 PCrLJ 542 MAHBOOB SANI Versus State
* Police initially registered the case under Ss.365/506/148/149, P.P.C., but subsequently S.365, P.P.C. was changed into S.347, P.P.C.---Section 365, P.P.C. as well as the changed Section 347, P.P.C., were not compoundable and mere compromise would not entitle accused to the concession of bail---Offences of which accused were charged did not come within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. as maximum sentence provided for the offence under S.365, P.P.C. was §even years and under S.347, P.P.C. was three years---In cases which were not hit by prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., the grant of bail was a rule and refusal of the same was an exception to that rule---Statement of the complainant recorded on oath had also mitigating effect---Accused were admitted to bail, in circumstances . 2009 PCrLJ 389 MUHAMMAD ZAKRIYA Versus State
* Solitary statement of the widow of the deceased was sufficient to maintain the conviction and sentence of accused---Partial compromise in a murder case was not permissible---Accused had murdered an innocent person in daylight without any legal and plausible justification---No mitigating circumstance existed in favour of accused---Conviction and sentence of accused were upheld in circumstances . 2009 MLD 54 MUHAMMAD ANWAR alias BILLA Versus State
* Offence of Qatl-i-Amd punishable with sentence of death or imprisonment for life as Ta'zir though can be compounded by all the legal heirs of the deceased under S.345(2), Cr.P.C. yet, its acceptance within the purview of S.345(2), Cr.P.C. is dependent upon permission of the Court which has to be accorded keeping in view attending circumstances of each case---Accused, in the present case, had committed murder of his own father and that too, in a brutal manner, without any cause---Accused had two young sisters, the other male member of the family i.e. his brother was behind the bars in another case and it was pleaded that girls would be exposed to the adversities of life, in case the accused was executed, therefore, while taking the compromise as a mitigating circumstance, Supreme Court ordered that the sentence of death inflicted on accused be reduced to imprisonment for life---Order accordingly. 2008 SCMR 987 MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus State
* Compromise between the parties had, no doubt, taken place which had been attested by them and their counsel, but offence under S.18 read with S.10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, being not compoundable, no order of acquittal could be passed merely on account of compromise---Parties were related inter se and a lenient view in the case could help in reducing the bad blood between them---Conciliation and repentance expressed by the accused was treated as a mitigating circumstance---Sentence of five years' R.I. awarded to accused was reduced to two years' R.I. with benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. in circumstances . 2004 PCRLJ 188 MUSTAFA Versus THE STATE
* Where the case was that of proved act of aggression such burden should not be allowed to be avoided or shifted---Accused having committed the murder in cold blood despite the fact that in previous quarrel it was he who had slapped the deceased lady and he nursed the grudge though the quarrel had been compromised due to intervention of the notables---Deceased lady was bearing a pregnancy of 20 weeks and quite mature a foetus was found dead alongwith the bearer---No mitigating circumstances , therefore, existed for reduction of sentence of the accused. PLD 2003 SC 635 NIAZ AHMAD Versus THE STATE
* Father and mother of the deceased had not compromised with the accused---Widow, son and daughter of the deceased, however, had forgiven the accused. in the name of Almighty Allah after having waived their right of Qisas which was a mitigating circumstance in favour of accused---Sentence of death of accused was reduced to imprisonment for life in circumstances . 2003 PCRLJ 760 IMRAN SHAH Versus THE STATE
* In precedent cases compromise between the convict and the legal heirs of the deceased (murdered person) was considered a mitigating circumstance after referring to Islamic point of view and the death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life. 1998 SCMR 1921 FATIMA BIBI Versus MAHMOOD HUSSAIN
* Moreover, partial compromise had been effected by parents of deceased, who were major legal heirs of deceased---Such could be a mitigating circumstance for awarding lesser sentence---Death
* Conviction and sentence for the non -compound able offence had to be recorded separately and could not be implied---Matter of conviction and sentence for the non -compound able offence had become a past and closed transaction---compromise between the parties for the compound able offence should not have been rejected in such circumstances. 2016 SCMR 1190 IRFAN Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF
* Conviction and death sentence recorded under S. 302(b), P.P.C. and S. 7(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---offence under S. 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was an independent one, which was non -compound able, thus the sentence awarded under said provision of law was independent to other sentences under S. 302(b), P.P.C. etc., which may be compound able in nature---In view of the bar contained in S. 345(7), Cr.P.C., conviction of an accused under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 would remain intact despite compromise in other sentences in compound able offence . 2016 SCMR 291 KAREEM NAWAZ KHAN Versus The STATE through PGP
* Offence under S.436, P.P.C., though was not compound able, 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 compromise d---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 compound able, but non -compound ability 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 -compound ability---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. PLD 2016 Pesh. 26 IJAZ Versus Mst. MANADIA
* Compromise was arrived between accused and legal heirs of the deceased, according to which, legal heirs of the deceased had forgiven accused and had waived their right of qisas in the name of Almighty Allah---Heirs of the deceased deposed that they had no objection to acquittal of accused for the murder of their son---Trial Court had verified that said compromise had been entered into voluntarily and without fear---High Court was satisfied that legal heirs of the deceased had effected compromise with regard to murder of the deceased, and had resorted to amicable relations, to promote harmony and good-will between the parties, and to ensure peace and tranquility in the vicinity---compromise was accepted for murder of deceased---offence under S.377, P.P.C. was not compound able, but as legal heirs of the deceased had pardoned accused for murder of their son, which was a major offence , courts of law had always taken lenient view with regard to akin offence s falling under the category of non -compound able offences---compromise having been effected in the regular proceedings, High Court could consider the compromise as a mitigating circumstance in the matter of quantum of sentence awarded in the non -compound able offence i.e. under S.377, P.P.C.---Accused had admitted that he had committed a shameful act; that his conscience pinched him that he deserved punishment; and that he felt repentant---Such was an extraordinary extenuating circumstance for taking a lenient view in the matter of sentence under S.377, P.P.C.---Accused had undergone two years, three months and 27 days incarceration---Sentence already undergone by accused under S.377, P.P.C., would be more than sufficient---Impugned judgment to the extent of conviction and sentence under S.302(b), P.PC., was set aside and accused was acquitted of the charge of murder---Conviction of accused under S.377, P.P.C., was maintained, but taking lenient view in awarding punishment under said section, sentence already undergone by accused, would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. 2016 MLD 48 QASIM IJAZ Versus State
* Accused sought their acquittal on the basis of compromise effected between the parties. Offence under S. 495, P.P.C. was an independent offence which had its own punishment in addition to punishment for causing Qatl or causing hurt or attempt to cause Qatl or hurt therefore, such offence could not be merged into main offence ---When one was tried for two different offence s and awarded punishments in both of them, then competence of one to compound one offence could not affect legality of sentence awarded for other independent offence by competent court of law---Likelihood of failure of prosecution to prove charge was no ground to make a non -compound able offence as compound able---Attempt to compound an offence , even if failed, could not bring any consequence on merits of the case however, failure of prosecution/complainant to establish charge could give certain rights to accused against complainant/prosecution---High Court accepted compromise to the extent of convictions awarded under Ss. 302(b), 337-A(i) & 337-F(i), P.P.C. while for the offence under S. 459, P.P.C. the same was declined---Application was allowed accordingly. 2016 MLD 580 MOHARRAM alias MAROO Versus State
* Offence under S.436, P.P.C., though was not compound able, 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 compromise d---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 compound able, but non -compound ability 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 -compound ability---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. PLD 2015 Pesh. 223 IJAZ Versus Mst. MANADIA
* Compromise applications were filed by complainant/legal heirs of deceased during pendency of appeals---offence under S.302, P.P.C. was compound able by legal heirs of the victim, whereas offence under S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, had not been shown in the first and second column of table of S.345, Cr.P.C.---Such offence was not compound able under the provisions of S. 345, Cr.P.C., as provisions of said section, could not be stretched too far by including therein a non -compound able offence under the garb of humanitarian grounds; or on the ground that accused persons belonged to Rangers Force---Manner, in which brutal murder of the deceased was committed, caused sensation in society---Such offence being against society, it could not be permitted to be compound ed by an individual/legal heir of the deceased on any score---Application filed for compound ing of offence being without legal force, was dismissed, in circumstances. 2015 PCrLJ 628 SHAHID ZAFAR Versus State
* Accused was charged inter alia with an offence under Ss.6 & 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which did not find place in any of the columns of the Table appended to the provisions of S.345, Cr.P.C., detailing the compound able offence s---Allowing prayer to transfer case from Anti-Terrorism Court on ground of compromise would literally mean converting a non -compound able offence into a compound able offence , which was a total novel concept; and not recognized by the law---Law had clearly limited the cases which could be compound able/ compromise d and did not provide any scope for converting a non -compound able offence into a compound able, merely because the parties had entered into a compromise ---Such an action would not only frustrate the provisions of S.345, Cr.P.C., but would make all offence s as compound able which would be against the public policy and beyond the competence of court, and could not be allowed---Neither jurisdiction could be conferred on a court which had no jurisdiction to adjudicate an issue, nor a court could be deprived of its jurisdiction for the convenience or at the request of the parties---Accused had killed his sister on account of her free will marriage in the court room, where justice was dispensed and people had confidence to be treated in accordance with law---Anti-Terrorism Court, had rightly rejected request for transferring the case to the Court of Session, in circumstances. 2015 PCrLJ 438 JAVED IQBAL Versus State
* Human life was the most valuable of all the things---Islam as a religion of humanity attached utmost sanctity to human life---Murder of a human being was the greatest sin after the sin of 'shirk' (Assigning partners with Almighty Allah), and was unpardonable, particularly when committed during the course of dacoity in view of the bar under S.345(7), Cr.P.C.---Islamic Sharia had divided the punishments for crimes into three categories; Hudood; Qisas; and Ta'zir---Said punishments, which had been determined by the Holy Quran and the Sunnah for crimes, were called Hudood---Punishments for crime, involving the rights of individuals, were called as Qisas; and the punishments for crimes, which had not been fixed by the Holy Quran or Sunnah, but had been left to discretion of the rulers and the Judges, were called as Tazir---Where compromise between the parties had been reached in non -compound able offence s during pendency of the appeal, the courts had taken the compromise as a ground for reduction in the quantum of sentence only, but in the matters of bail, same could only be considered as one of the facts, alongside the facts and circumstances of the case, for determining whether bail be granted or not---Any person, who was an accused of a non -compound able offence , was not entitled to claim bail as a matter of right on the sole strength of compromise ---offence of murder, punishable with death under S.302(a), P.P.C., and under S.302(b), P.P.C. as Tazir, though was compound able under the law, but where murder had taken place during the course of committing a dacoity, punishable with death under S.396, P.P.C., or an offence under S.392, P.P.C., was not compound able. 2014 PCrLJ 178 MUHAMMAD AYUB Versus State
* Accused was convicted by Trial Court and sentenced to death penalty---During pendency of appeal compromise was effected between the parties. Non e of the ingredients of S.311 or 338-E, P.P.C., were attracted as neither in F.I.R., charge or in entire prosecution evidence, there was even any suggestion by complainant or prosecution regarding commission of offence in brutal or shocking manner---No impediment existed in accepting compromise reached at between parties in respect of offence under S.302, P.P.C. which was compound able---High Court accepted the compromise and compound ed the offence under S.302, P.P.C.---Accused was acquitted in circumstances. 2014 PCrLJ 1454 ZULFIQAR ALI KACHELO alias ALI Versus State
* Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was a special law---Private complainant or legal heirs had no right to compound the scheduled offence s---Said offence s were against the State but not only against individuals---Second Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1998, provided that offence s punishable under Ss.353 & 377, P.P.C. were not compound able---Complainant was not competent to compound the offence under S.13 of Arms Ordinance, 1965---compromise did not constitute valid ground for acquittal of the accused---Trial Court was not vested with the powers to act upon the statements of the complainant and minor victim---Trial Court illegally acquitted the accused on the basis of compromise in non -compound able offence s---Judgment/order of Trial Court was illegal and without lawful authority and caused miscarriage of justice---Impugned judgment and order of acquittal was set aside and case was remanded for decision afresh. 2013 MLD 1872 State Versus KHAISTA RAHMAN
* Complainant appeared to be fully satisfied with the terms of the compromise and did not oppose bail plea of accused persons---Although offence s mentioned in the F.I.R. were non -compound able but compromise /reconciliation between parties was a redeeming feature, which brought peace and harmony in the society---Courts always respected enthusiasm and passion of parties to compound the offence , whether the same was compound able or not---Will of parties to compound the offence had to be respected and given assent to, so that they might bear the fruit thereof---Ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused persons was confirmed in circumstances. 2013 PCrLJ 1458 MUHAMMAD JAMIL Versus State
* Compromise even in non -compound able offence s was a redeeming factor, which brought peace, harmony and coherence in the society, and it might have far-reaching positive effects in the lives of warring parties. PLD 2013 Lah. 651 ALI RAZA Versus State
* Although offence alleged was not compound able, but eagerness of the parties to settle their dispute by executing an agreement had to be given a sense of respect, so that they might harvest benefit thereof---Complainant and his wife were doctors by profession, hence educated persons, who understood the terms of the compromise well---If loss sustained by the complainant at the hands of accused persons was made good to his satisfaction, then there might be no harm in admitting accused persons to bail---Complainant had expressly stated that on account of the compromise he did not intend to prosecute the accused persons further---Accused persons were admitted to bail in such circumstances with the observation that complainant would be within his right to lodge a request for withdrawal of bail, if the accused side showed hesitation in complying with the terms and conditions of the compromise agreement. PLD 2013 Lah. 651 ALI RAZA Versus State
* Despite compromise between the parties, accused persons could not be acquitted as they had been convicted for offence s, which were not compound able under statutory law as contained in S.345, Cr.P.C.---compromise could not legally be effected in a case where accused had been convicted for an offence under S.18 of offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979---High Court was not competent to give effect to a compromise in the non -compound able offence s, which had been committed by accused persons as the same was against the law as well as Public Policy---compromise , however could be considered as a mitigating circumstance for the purpose of awarding sentence in non -compound able offence s in appropriate cases, except in heinous offence s which were considered crime against society---To compound , non -compound able offence was against Public Policy, keeping in view the state of facts existing on the date of application to compound ---No offence s would be compound ed, except where the provisions of S.345, Cr.P.C. were satisfied as to all matters mentioned therein. PLD 2013 FSC 42 AMJAD ALI Versus State
* Complainant, though had compromise d with accused persons, but offence against accused persons was not compound able---Accused persons were young men and were first offenders and bread-earners for their families---Conviction and sentence as awarded to accused under S.12 of offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 to 10 years' R.I. with fine, was maintained, but while maintaining his conviction under S.377, P.P.C., his sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to 10 years' R.I., with fine---Conviction of co-accused under S.12 of the offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, was also maintained, but his sentence was modified from 10 years' R.I. to the terms already undergone, with fine. 2012 YLR 752 JAHAN ZEB Versus State
* Petitioner/complainant had assailed the vires of order passed by the Magistrate, whereby respondents/ accused persons were acquitted on the ground that a compromise was effected between the complainant and accused persons at the time of hearing of bail petition---Schedule II of Cr.P.C., had provided that an offence punishable under S.420, P.P.C. was compound able with the permission of the court, whereas the offence punishable under Ss.468/471, P. P. C. was not compound able---compromise at the bail stage did not constitute a valid ground for acquittal of accused---Trial Court was not vested with the powers to act upon the statement allegedly made during hearing of bail with regard to compromise and acquitting accused on the basis of alleged compromise in a non -compound able offence ---Order acquitting accused, in circumstances, was patently illegal and without lawful authority---Such orders would cause miscarriage of justice and should not be left unnoticed by the High Court while exercising constitutional jurisdiction, merely on the ground that an appeal was not preferred against the said order---Such void orders would not exist in the eyes of law; and could be directly assailed through constitutional petition---Order passed by the Magistrate acquitting accused persons, was set aside, in circumstances. 2011 YLR 876 RASHEEDA BIBI Versus MUHAMMAD ILYAS REHAN
* Both the complainant as well as the victim appeared before High Court at the time of arguments and voluntarily made a statement that they did not want to pursue the case any more and had no objection if the accused were acquitted of the charge---Prosecution case after having been examined from each and every aspect, was not likely to succeed---Reasons advanced by Trial Court for convicting the accused also had no weight---offence charged against the accused was non -compound able and the question was whether compromise could be effected in a non -compound able offence ---compromise was meant to promote harmonious living and maintain cordial relations between the parties---Accused were acquitted in circumstances and their appeal was allowed accordingly. 2011 MLD 1468 AAMIR Versus State
* Accused persons were sentenced to death on each count, who sought permission to compound the offence. Prosecution witnesses had given quite accurate account of the incident---Ocular evidence sustained the test of cross examination---Testimonies of eve witnesses, except some insignificant discrepancies, had not been shattered---Eye witnesses had been believed by two Courts below and such appreciation of evidence and conclusions drawn therefrom were not erroneous---Alleged weak or non proof of motive was not fatal to the case of prosecution---Role assigned to and performed by each of the accused had been clearly described by eye witnesses, which when tested on the touchstone of medical evidence was substantially corroborated---Supreme Court declined to bring the case within the ambit of either an unseen occurrence or a case for benefit of doubt to the accused had been made out---Supreme Court declined to grant leave to compromise the offence ---Leave to appeal was refused. PLD 2010 SC 938 NASEEM AKHTAR Versus State
* Muslim and a non -Muslim and even non -Muslims inter se can compound the offence ---Section 345, Cr. P. C. which regulates compound ing of offence , does not provide for any competence or otherwise of a person who wants to enter into a compromise , and it also does not restrict a Muslim or a non -Muslim from entering into such compromise ---Qualification for entertaining an application for compromise is only the compound ability of the offence and nothing more. PLD 2010 Quetta 30 MUHAMMAD AZAM alias ASLAM Versus State
* Accused had allegedly taken the complainant inside the school and tried to commit sodomy with him after removing his "Shalwar"---Complainant had compromise d with the accused voluntarily outside the court---offence under S. 377, P.P.C. was not compound able under S. 345(1) Cr.P.C, but the factum of compromise could be considered as a ground for grant of bail in the interest of justice and equity---If the complainant party was no longer willing to prosecute a matter any further, then court would not compel the parties to do so, as the saying goes, "you can take the horse till the water but you cannot make him drink"---Judicial notice of compromise in bail matters could be taken even in non -compound able offence s---Ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused was confirmed in circumstances. 2010 PCrLJ 1482 MUHAMMAD MAKKI Versus State
* Judicial notice of compromise in non -compound able offence s, not mentioned in S. 345(1) Cr.P.C., can be taken and the same may be considered as a ground for grant of bail in the interest of justice and equity. 2010 PCrLJ 1482 MUHAMMAD MAKKI Versus State
* Sections 457 & 380, P.P.C. and S.14 of offence s Against Property -(Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, were non -compound able---Magistrate had to apply his judicial mind while passing such order, which was conspicuously lacking, and it was not ipsi dixit of the police to decide the fate of a criminal case---Impugned order being not speaking one, no justification of such an order was found from the text of impugned order---Impugned order was set aside and case was remanded to the court of Judicial Magistrate, with the direction to pass proper, legal and speaking order afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the applicant, his witnesses and State Counsel. 2010 YLR 40 MEENHAN KHAN Versus S.P. INVESTIGATION HYDERABAD
* Compromise arrived at between accused and the legal heirs of deceased, would certainly promote harmonious living and maintain cordial relations between the parties---Conviction and sentence of accused persons recorded under S.302(b) P.P.C., were set aside and they were acquitted of the said charge on the basis of compromise --offence under S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 though was non -compound able, as the parties had entered into compromise in substantive/main offence of Qatl-e-Amd the same was also allowed and accused were also acquitted from the charge under S.7(1)(c) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Conviction and sentence of accused persons were set aside and they were acquitted of the charge on the basis of compromise ---Accused were ordered to be released. 2009 YLR 1526 GHULAM ABBAS Versus State
* Offence s under which accused had been charged being not compound able, compromise between the parties could not be made a ground for bail in non -compound able offence s---Section 381-A, P.P.C.' carried a maximum sentence of seven years while punishment provided under S.13, West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 also did not come within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Grant of bail, in such like cases, was a rule and refusal of same was an exception to that rule---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. 2008 MLD 991 HAZRAT KHAN Versus State
* Accused were convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment and fine---During pendency of appeal filed by accused against their conviction and sentence, a compromise was arrived at between the parties---Accused were convicted and sentenced under Ss.302, 364-A & 109 P.P.C., out of which S.364-A P.P.C. was not compound able---State Counsel had stated that accused persons had served more than 10 years in jail and if the sentence in a non -compound able offence under S.364-A P.P.C. was reduced to one already undergone, he would have no objection---compromise arrived at between the parties in the case under S.302(a) P.P.C. was accepted and sentence and conviction awarded thereunder was set aside, while their conviction under S.364-A P.P.C. was upheld, but their sentence was reduced to the one already undergone on each count---Fine of Rs.50,000 was also reduced to Rs.5,000. 2008 MLD 886 MUKHTAR ALI Versus State
* Courts, no doubt, at all levels without any legal impediment, while deciding 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 question of sentence in a non -compound able 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. PLD 2007 SC 447 MUHAMMAD AKHTAR alias HUSSAIN Versus State
* Whatever be the nature and status of an offence but for the purpose of the compromise it would be seen as to whether the offence of the section of law for which the compromise was requested was compound able under the law or not---compound able offence s had been mentioned in S.345(1), Cr.P.C.---offence under S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which was punishable with death, was not mentioned in S.345(1), Cr.P.C. in the category of compound able offence s---Both the Courts below, therefore, had rightly disallowed the compromise ---Question of reduction of sentence of accused in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties was also considered---Present matter before Supreme Court was not in the regular proceedings---Convictions and sentences of accused under S.302/34, P.P.C. and S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, had already been kept intact up to the level of Supreme Court---When once the findings had been given on merits by Supreme Court, then it would not be appropriate to enter the merits of the case against to consider the reduction of sentence in an offence which was not compound able---Findings of the Courts below by not granting permission to compound the offence under S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were in accordance with law particularly in view of the bar as contained in subsection (7) of section 345, Cr.P.C.---Impugned order having no illegality did not deserve any interference---Leave to appeal was declined accordingly. PLD 2007 SC 447 MUHAMMAD AKHTAR alias HUSSAIN Versus State
* Offence under S.7(e) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, being non -compound able, any compromise between the parties was of no consequence---Accused had not led any evidence to establish their friendship with the abductee or regarding the complicity of the abductee himself in the crime---Entire ransom amount had been recovered from accused who were arrested by the police from the house on the pointation of abductee---Abductee had no motive for false implication of accused in the case---Incriminating recoveries from the accused including the ransom amount, pistols with live cartridges, mobile phone and motorcycle of abductee, had further connected the accused with the offence ---Investigating Officer in the peculiar circumstances of the case could not possibly join persons from the public in recovery proceedings, even otherwise police, witnesses were as good witnesses as other witnesses---Recoveries had corroborated the evidence furnished by the prosecution witnesses---Even if the recoveries had not been proved in a case of kidnapping or abduction for ransom, the determining factor was the object behind the crime---Conviction and sentence of accused were upheld in circumstances. 2007 PCRLJ 1097 USMAN ALI Versus State
* Legal heirs of deceased though had compromise d with accused but offence s under Ss.396 & 460, P.P.C. against accused were non -compound able offence s as provided in Sched-II of Cr.P.C.---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---Convictions of accused were upheld, however, sentences were reduced to the period already undergone by him. 2007 PCRLJ 185 NAZIR AHMAD Versus State
* Court, in the matter of interpretation and application of provisions of Chap. XVI, P.P.C. in respect of the offence s mentioned therein or the matters ancillary or akin thereto, can seek guidance from the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah as provided in S.338-F, P.P.C. but it cannot bring a non -compound able offence within the purview of S.345, Cr.P.C. by virtue of S.338-F, P.P.C. for the purpose of compound ing it on the basis of compromise . PLD 2006 SC 53 GHULAM FARID alias FARIDA Versus THE STATE
* Offence s which were compound able in Islam had also been made compound able under the statutory law and in compound able offence s it was permissible for the Courts to give effect to the compromise between the parties at any stage of the proceedings before or after the final conclusion of the matter whereas a compromise in non -compound able offence s could not be given legal cover at any stage---Offence of murder punishable with death under S.302(a), P.P.C. as Qisas and under S.302(b), P.P.C. as Tazir was compound able under the law, but the murder committed during the course of committing dacoity punishable with death under S.396, P.P.C. was not compound able ---Ayat Nos. 178 and 179 of Surah Baqara of the Holy Qur'an also revealed that there was no conflict of the statutory law with the law of Islam regarding forgiveness, as the offence under S.302, P.P.C. and offence under. S.396, P.P.C. were entirely different and distinct offence s---offence of dacoity was not compound able either under Islamic law or under the statutory law of the Country---Concept of right of "Afw" and "Badal-e-Sulh" in a case of Qatl-i-Amd punishable under S.302(a), P.P.C. as Qisas can also be exercised with permission of Court in a case in which punishment of death is awarded as Tazir under S.302(b), P.P.C., but the concept of "Afw" and "Badl-e-Sulh" under the existing law had not been made applicable to a case under S.396, P.P.C. in which death was awarded for murder taken place during the course of committing dacoity---Court, thus, could not competently give effect to a compromise in a non -compound able 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 under S.396, P.P.C. he could not avail the benefit of Ss.309 and 310, P.P.C. read with S.338-E, P.P.C. as the same could not be made applicable to give effect to a compromise in a non -compound able offence under the law---Court in the matter of interpretation and application of the provisions of Chap XVI, P.P.C. in respect of the offence s mentioned therein or the matters ancillary or akin thereto could seek guidance from the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah as provided in S.338-F, P.P.C. but it could not bring a non -compound able offence within the purview of S.345, Cr.P.C. by virtue of S.338-F, P.P.C.---Supreme Court while upholding the judgment of High Court whereby conviction and sentence of accused were maintained, had already dismissed the petition for leave to appeal---Present petition had arisen out of the proceedings in a miscellaneous application moved by the accused for his acquittal on the basis of his compromise with the legal heirs of the deceased, therefore, in these proceedings High Court could not possibly re-open the case on merits in exercise of its powers under S.561-A, Cr. P.C.---Supreme Court also was not supposed to undertake such an exercise under Article 187 of the Constitution and consider the question relating to the quantum of sentence on the basis of compromise between the parties in such a heinous offence , which was considered a crime against the society---compromise between the parties could not be treated a mitigating circumstance for the purpose of lesser punishment---Leave to appeal was declined to accused accordingly. PLD 2006 SC 53 GHULAM FARID alias FARIDA Versus THE STATE
* Compromise as a mitigating circumstance. 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 -compound able 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. PLD 2006 SC 53 GHULAM FARID alias FARIDA Versus THE STATE
* Statements of said defence witnesses were not worthy of credence, especially when it was a partial compromise having not been entered into by all legal heirs of deceased and such a compromise , could not be blessed by the Court---Defence plea, in circumstances, was ruled out of consideration---Accused remained fugitive from law for long eight months which also indicated the guilty conscience of accused---Accused, who had committed intentional murder of his real father in broad daylight in a callous manner, seemed to be an unscrupulous person and did not deserve any leniency in the quantum of sentence---Conviction and sentences recorded against accused by the Trial Court, were maintained---Death sentence of accused was confirmed and murder reference was answered in affirmative. 2006 PCRLJ 1146 MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus State
* Compromise effected between parties could be considered for the purpose of sentence, when offence was not compound able---While maintaining conviction of accused for offence under S.377, P.P.C., his sentence was reduced to two years' R.I. and sentence of fine was also reduced to Rs.1000. 2006 MLD 1288 Hafiz MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus State
* All the offence s under which the petitioners were convicted were non -compound able offence s--Only offence s affecting human body mentioned in Ch. XVI, P.P.C. were made compound able by substituting Ss. 299 to 338-H 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 rejecting the petition for compound ing of offence s---Principles. 2005 SCMR 1162 SHAHZAD alias SHADO and 3 others Versus JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, FAISALABAD
* Compromise between the parties manifestly was the outcome of the pressure and influence exerted by the accused Councillor who was being supported by the feudal lords of the area and he had even made it impossible for the senior supervisory police officer of the District despite direction of High Court to produce him in Court and he at his own pleasure had opted to move High Court for pre-arrest bail---Even otherwise, offence s under Ss.379, 506, para. second & 163, P.P.C. were not compound able and the local police while registering the case on the complaint of the Doctor had not with mala fide intention mentioned the said sections of the P.P.C.---non e of the basic conditions for grant of pre-arrest bail was available in favour of accused, rather the whole district administration was playing in his hands---Most important criterion in this regard was the satisfaction of the Court that the case was or not fit for bail---Accused had even slapped on the face of the complainant Doctor on his refusal to give the required Medical Certificate---Person like the accused must be dealt with sternly in order to make the country people feel that they were living in such country where the law had edge over everything--Pre-arrest bail was refused to accused in circumstances. PLD 2003 Lah. 403 RANA ZULFIQAR ALI Versus THE STATE
* Grant of bail on basis of compromise in a non -compound able offence ---Accused was caught red-handed while stealing and was detained by the complainant in the house and thereafter was produced before the police---Prosecution story was supported by the other inmates of the house---offence against the accused under S.457, P.P.C. was punishable with sentence of fourteen years'imprisonment---Accused had sought bail on the ground that a compromise had been arrived at between the parties---Where compromise between the parties had been reached in non -compound able offence during the pendency of the appeal, the Courts had taken the compromise as a ground for reduction in sentence only---compromise in bail matter had by and large, been considered as one of the factors, alongside the facts of the case, for determining whether bail be granted, but same could not be made its sole basis---compromise in non -compound able offence , should not entitle the accused to bail, but could be considered as one of the factors for its grant--Even otherwise the effect of compromise in non -compound able offence s, could not be taken at par, even at bail stage, with that of compound able offence s, which ultimately would result in the acquittal of the accused--Since the merits of the case against the accused did not justify the grant of bail to him, the compromise between the parties could not be taken to entitle the accused to bail. 2001 PCRLJ 1493 RAHIM HAYAT QURESHI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
* Offence can be compound ed between a Muslim end non -Muslim and even between non -Muslims inter se--Section 345, Cr.P.C. under which compounding of offence is regulated does not provide for any competence or otherwise of a person entering into a compromise , nor does it restrict a Muslim or a. non -Muslim from entering into such compromise ---Only qualification for entertaining such application is the compound ability of the offence and nothing more. 2001 PCRLJ 318 ABDUL MAJEED Versus STATE
* Pending appeal against conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court, compromise was reached between the accused and legal heirs of deceased whereby "AFW" was granted to accused by heirs of deceased in the name of God and heirs of deceased had prayed that accused be acquitted--Genuineness of the compromise was verified and same was found to be genuine and voluntary---compromise reached between the parties though was valid and of voluntary nature, but such a compromise , would not necessarily entail an automatic acquittal of convict because provisions of 5.311, P.P.C. had envisaged situations where, despite compromise reached between the parties, accused was still liable to punishment by way of "Ta'zir"---One such situation in which such punishment could be awarded was where offence in question amounted to or involved "Farad Fil ,Arz"---Accused was guilty of killing a police constable whose only fault was that he was a member of a police party which had gone to the house of accused on receiving information that accused was keeping illicit arms in his house and when commanded by head of the police party to open the door of his house and to permit search therein, had opened fire on them with assistance of his companions which had resulted in death of the police constable---Said act/conduct of accused amounted to "Farad Fil Arz"---Conviction and punishment recorded by Trial Court against accused under S.302/34, P.P.C. though was set aside, but he was directed to suffer 10 years' R.I. under S.311, P.P.C.---Other offence s against accused under S.186/353/34, P.P.C. being non -compound able, conviction and punishments under Ss.186, & 353/34, P.P.C. were maintained. 2000 PCRLJ 1841 ABDUL GHAFOOR Versus STATE
* Compromise in non -compound able offence s--Judicial notice of a compromise having taken place can be taken even in offence s which are not compound able. 1999 PCRLJ 1107 MIANGUL SHAHZADA JAHANZEB Versus DEPUTY LAND COMMISSIONER, SWAT AT MINGORA
* Allegation made in the F.I.R. and the evidence collected during investigation should be given due weight in bail matter in deciding prima facie nature of the offence made out against an accused person and the punishment provided therefor---No presumption should be permitted to be raised that the offence being compound able may at some stage be compound ed and such presumption shall not be made a ground for grant of bail in non -bailable offence s. 1994 SCMR 1064 MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN Versus GHULAM AHMAD ALIAS JALLAH KHAN
* Compromise even in non -compound able offence s being recognized ground for reduction in sentence, sentence of four years' R.I. was reduced to one already undergone. 1991 PCRLJ 2296 IJAZ ALEEM Versus THE STATE
* Prosecutrix and her mother, supporting prosecution--Two eyewitnesses named in F.I.R. given up as won-over--Complainant, father of prosecutrix resiling from his previous version given in F.I.R. and private complaint and also filing application for withdrawal of complaint on basis of compromise between parties--Refusal of complainant to support prosecution story even though it involved his daughter, held, would adversely affect case of prosecution in circumstances. 1987 PCRLJ 1034 LASHKAR Versus STATE
* Though factum of compromise having been effected between parties stood admitted and seemed to be, genuine yet law, held, did not, warrant acquittal of convict merely on such account in a non compound able offence --Appeal decided on merits. 1986 MLD 1111 MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus STATE
* Withdrawal of appeal sought by parties on account of their compromise in civil and criminal litigation-One of offence s allegedly non -compound able but trial Court recorded acquittal--Besides compromise in civil suit parties patching up their differences in criminal case also-Appeal allowed to be withdrawn in view of special circumstances of case. 1984 PCRLJ 1271 RASHID BIBI Versus ABDUL KARIM
Compromise & Mitigating Circumstances;
* Compromise having been effected in the regular proceedings, High Court could consider the compromise as a mitigating circumstance in the matter of quantum of sentence awarded in the non-compoundable offence i.e. under S.377, P.P.C.---Accused had admitted that he had committed a shameful act; that his conscience pinched him that he deserved punishment; and that he felt repentant---Such was an extraordinary extenuating circumstance for taking a lenient view in the matter of sentence under S.377, P.P.C.---Accused had undergone two years, three months and 27 days incarceration---Sentence already undergone by accused under S.377, P.P.C., would be more than sufficient---Impugned judgment to the extent of conviction and sentence under S.302(b), P.PC., was set aside and accused was acquitted of the charge of murder---Conviction of accused under S.377, P.P.C., was maintained, but taking lenient view in awarding punishment under said section, sentence already undergone by accused, would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. 2016 MLD 48 QASIM IJAZ Versus State
* Complainant/father of deceased, had compounded the murder of his son with accused by extending him pardon---Legal representative of lady deceased had not effected any compromise---Taking into consideration the fact that accused had a minor daughter, who had already lost her mother; and in case of maintaining the death sentence, she would also lose her father as mitigating circumstance, conviction of accused under S.302(b), P.P.C. was maintained on two counts, but his sentence was reduced from death to imprisonment for life. 2015 YLR 1448 QASIM Versus The STATE
* Plea of partial compromise and relationship between the parties could hardly be considered for mitigating sentence---No mitigating circumstance was available in favour of accused---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances . 2012 YLR 953 MUHAMMAD ISMAIL Versus State
* Counsel for accused could not produce any thing in writing regarding compromise allegedly arrived at between the parties; even otherwise offence was not compoundable---No mitigating circumstance could be pointed out which could warrant reduction of sentence of the accused---Trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced accused, in circumstances . 2012 PCrLJ 530 MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus State
* Offence, though was not compoundable and accused was not entitled to bail on the ground of compromise, but on the principle of `forget and forgive' the compromise could be taken as a mitigating circumstance while considering the request of post-arrest bail of an accused---Record had revealed that accused could at the most be booked for an offence under S.411, P.P.C. which did not fall within the restrictive clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances . 2009 PCrLJ 542 MAHBOOB SANI Versus State
* Police initially registered the case under Ss.365/506/148/149, P.P.C., but subsequently S.365, P.P.C. was changed into S.347, P.P.C.---Section 365, P.P.C. as well as the changed Section 347, P.P.C., were not compoundable and mere compromise would not entitle accused to the concession of bail---Offences of which accused were charged did not come within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. as maximum sentence provided for the offence under S.365, P.P.C. was §even years and under S.347, P.P.C. was three years---In cases which were not hit by prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., the grant of bail was a rule and refusal of the same was an exception to that rule---Statement of the complainant recorded on oath had also mitigating effect---Accused were admitted to bail, in circumstances . 2009 PCrLJ 389 MUHAMMAD ZAKRIYA Versus State
* Solitary statement of the widow of the deceased was sufficient to maintain the conviction and sentence of accused---Partial compromise in a murder case was not permissible---Accused had murdered an innocent person in daylight without any legal and plausible justification---No mitigating circumstance existed in favour of accused---Conviction and sentence of accused were upheld in circumstances . 2009 MLD 54 MUHAMMAD ANWAR alias BILLA Versus State
* Offence of Qatl-i-Amd punishable with sentence of death or imprisonment for life as Ta'zir though can be compounded by all the legal heirs of the deceased under S.345(2), Cr.P.C. yet, its acceptance within the purview of S.345(2), Cr.P.C. is dependent upon permission of the Court which has to be accorded keeping in view attending circumstances of each case---Accused, in the present case, had committed murder of his own father and that too, in a brutal manner, without any cause---Accused had two young sisters, the other male member of the family i.e. his brother was behind the bars in another case and it was pleaded that girls would be exposed to the adversities of life, in case the accused was executed, therefore, while taking the compromise as a mitigating circumstance, Supreme Court ordered that the sentence of death inflicted on accused be reduced to imprisonment for life---Order accordingly. 2008 SCMR 987 MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus State
* Compromise between the parties had, no doubt, taken place which had been attested by them and their counsel, but offence under S.18 read with S.10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, being not compoundable, no order of acquittal could be passed merely on account of compromise---Parties were related inter se and a lenient view in the case could help in reducing the bad blood between them---Conciliation and repentance expressed by the accused was treated as a mitigating circumstance---Sentence of five years' R.I. awarded to accused was reduced to two years' R.I. with benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. in circumstances . 2004 PCRLJ 188 MUSTAFA Versus THE STATE
* Where the case was that of proved act of aggression such burden should not be allowed to be avoided or shifted---Accused having committed the murder in cold blood despite the fact that in previous quarrel it was he who had slapped the deceased lady and he nursed the grudge though the quarrel had been compromised due to intervention of the notables---Deceased lady was bearing a pregnancy of 20 weeks and quite mature a foetus was found dead alongwith the bearer---No mitigating circumstances , therefore, existed for reduction of sentence of the accused. PLD 2003 SC 635 NIAZ AHMAD Versus THE STATE
* Father and mother of the deceased had not compromised with the accused---Widow, son and daughter of the deceased, however, had forgiven the accused. in the name of Almighty Allah after having waived their right of Qisas which was a mitigating circumstance in favour of accused---Sentence of death of accused was reduced to imprisonment for life in circumstances . 2003 PCRLJ 760 IMRAN SHAH Versus THE STATE
* In precedent cases compromise between the convict and the legal heirs of the deceased (murdered person) was considered a mitigating circumstance after referring to Islamic point of view and the death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life. 1998 SCMR 1921 FATIMA BIBI Versus MAHMOOD HUSSAIN
* Moreover, partial compromise had been effected by parents of deceased, who were major legal heirs of deceased---Such could be a mitigating circumstance for awarding lesser sentence---Death
No comments:
Post a Comment