COMPENSATION

10 September 2013 ·

COMPENSATION

2003 PCrLJ 1180. Mujahid Hussain @ Zahid Hussain V/S The State (Lahore).

S.302 ( c ) & 100 PPC. No compensation and fine could be awarded, in cases of right of self-defence or grave and sudden provocation, therefore, sentence of fine awarded to accused, was also set aside. SENTENCE ALTERED

2003 PCrLJ 1488. Muhammad Tufail V/S Sessions Judge Attock & 2 Others (Lahore)

S.344-A. S.324 PPC. Payment of compensation to victim. Responsibility of accused. Trial court convicted accused and sentenced him to four years’ RI with fine, with direction to pay sum of Rs:100,000 to the victim as compensation and in default thereof to undergo six months’ SI. Appellate court maintained conviction and sentence of accused awarded by trial court but reduced the amount of compensation from Rs:100,000 to Rs:50,000/ High Court up0held judgment of Appellate Court and observed that since accused had served his entire sentence, he should be released. Victim who had not been paid compensation as reduced by the Appellate Court and upheld by High Court, filed application for its payment before trial magistrate which was dismissed, but in revision same was allowed by Appellate Court. Contention of accused was that he had served out substantive sentence and since he was ordered to be released, the effect was that he stood absolved of his liability to pay compensation. Contention of accused was repelled because under provisions of S.544-A(3) payment of compensation would be in addition to any sentence which court could impose. Compensation directed to be paid by accused to victim, was relatable to conviction of accused irrespective of sentence that had been imposed on him. High Court had only reduced sentence to the one already undergone by the accused but compensation payable byt accused was in addition to any sentence and would remain payable. Compensation was to be paid by accused and same was to be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

2003 PCrLJ 1574. Jan Alam V/S Muntazir @ Mutazir (Peshawar)

S.324/334/337-R PPC. Awarding of compensation for hurt. Right leg of comcomplainant had been removed as a result of fire arm injury caused to him by accused. Trial court held accused guilty of charge and convicted him but had not awarded proper compensation to be given by accused to complainant as provided under second part of S.324 PPC for hurt caused by accused to complainant. Injury inflicted by accused having caused permanent paralysation and incapacitation to the complainant, trial court while awarding conviction and sentence to accused U/S 324 PPC was required to have kept in mind provisions contained in second part of said section which had provided compensation to victim for hurt caused. Provisions of S.334 & 337-R PPC had provided that offender would be liable to payment of Arsh, which was half of Diyat amount. Number of accused persons, in the present case, being four, each accused was liable to payment of 1/4th of half of Diyat amount as Arsh to victim/complainant. In view of permanent nature of disability of complainant to pursue his ordinary pursuits of life, no mitigating circumstance existed in favour of accused for not allowing compensation to compainant for hurt caused to him as required U/S 324 PPC. Accused was directed to deposit amount of Arsh in trial court within specified period to be given to the complainant.

2003 PCrLJ 1658. Muhammad Siddique V/S The State & another (Lahore)

S.302( c)/34 PPC. ------------Amount of compensation imposed upon accused U/S 544-A CrPC was also remitted as both deceased at relevant time had been found committing zina and as such their heirs were not entitled to any compensation. LIFE IMP. REDUCED TO 10 YEARS

2003 SCMR 98. Jehanzeb V/S The State (SC.FB)

S.302(b) & 308 PPC.Accused had committed "Qatl-i-Amd (of his wife) and he was liable to be convicted and sentenced U/S 302(b) PPC by way of Tazir. Conviction of accused U/S 308 PPC was consequently altered to S.302(b) PPC and his sentence of 14 years R.I. was enhanced to imprisonment for life with the direction to pay Rs:50,000 as compensation U/S 544-A CrPC to the legal heirs of the deceased excluding himself. CR. APPEAL OF ACCUSED DISMISSED/CR. APPEAL OF COMPLAINANT PARTLY ALLOWED.

PLD 2003 Lahore 559.Ghulam Shabbir V/S The State

S.302(c ) PPC. S.544-A CrPC. Grave and sudden provocation. Award of compensation to legal heirs of the deceased. Validity. Where the accused acted in grave and sudden provocation when the deceased was found to be indulging in immoral activities, such as sexual intercourse, normally compensation was not granted to legal heirs of the deceased. MURDER REFERENCE ANSWERED IN NEGATIVE.

PLD 2004 SC 89. Muhammad Tufail V/S Sessions Judge Attock & 2 Others (DB)

S.324 PPC. S.544-A CrPC. Recovery of compensation awarded by the Court under S.544-A CrPC could neither be written off nor waived, even if substantive sentences were served out. Provisions of S.544-A CrPC, were mandatory whereunder even if the accused had undergone imprisonment in default of payment of compensation, then also the amount of compensation would be recovered as an arrear of land revenue. Leave to appeal was declined to the accused. LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED.

2004 SCMR 1808.Ayyaz Ahmed V/S Allah Wasaya & Others (SC.DB)

S.302/436 PPC.Accused had not only caused a total damage to coaster but had killed a man. High Court had rightly set aside conviction U/S 320 PPC but had ignored to award compensation under mandatory provisions of S.544 CrPC.Supreme Court in addition to sentence of imprisonment awarded by High Court sentenced accused to pay compensation U/S 544 CrPC collectively or individually of a sum of Rs 4 lac for damaging coaster to complainant and to pay compensation of Rs:250,000 individually to legal heirs of deceased.

2005 MLD 389. Saeed Shah & Others V/S The State & Others (Karachi DB)

S.544-A CrPC. S.302 PPC. Compensation to legal heirs of deceased. Trial court did not award the compensation as required U/S 544-A CrPC. Effect. High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction directed to pay the fine to the injured and the heirs of the deceased U/S 544-A CrPC, if realized.

2005 MLD 853.Haider Ali V/S The State (Lahore)

S.544-A CrPC. S.302(c ) PPC. No compensation was to be awarded in a case of grave and sudden provocation.

PLD 2005 Peshawar 243.Amir Zaman Khan & 2 Others V/S The State (FB)

S.544-A CrPC. S.302(b)/324/34 PPC. Compensation to legal heirs of deceased.Awarding of. Trial court having not awarded compensation to legal heirs of deceased in terms of S.544-A CrPC., accused were ordered by the High Court to pay Rs:50,000 each to legal heirs of deceased as compensation and in default thereof, accused would undergo six months' RI. Other sentences awarded to accused would remain intact. PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION ORDERED.

2006 SCMR 1834. Akhtar Iqbal V/S Muhammad Ali Bilal & Others (SC.DB)

S.250 CrPC. Compensation for vexatious and frivolous prosecution. Charge of beating levelled against eight persons including five women (respondents). Complainant in proof of such claim never ggot himself medically examined. Acquittal of accused by trial court and High Court. Petition for leave to appeal by complainant seeking conviction and punishment for respondents. Supreme Court dismissed petition, refused leave to appeal and directed complainant to pay Rs:25,000 to respondents as compensation for launching frivolous and vaxatious prosecution and for wasting time of the court by filing vexatious and frivolous petition. LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED,

PLD 2007 SC(AJK) 27. Muhammad Khurshid Khan V/S Muhammad Basharat & another

S.544-A CrPC. S.302 PPC. Payment of compensation to legal heirs of deceased. Where a person had been murdered, the Court, while awarding the sentence of life imprisonment or other, could also order for paying compensation to the legal heirs of deceased. Court had to award adequate compensation to heirs of deceased U/S 544-A CrPC and had to award sentence of imprisonment provided by law. Omission to award sentence of payment of compensation, while awarding imprisonment for life under S.302 PPC to accused for causing murder, was held to be a serious error.

NLR 2007 SD 590. Muhammad Khan V/S The State (SC)

S.250 CrPC. Negligent act on part of prosecuting agencies to prosecuting accused under S.7 of Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991, ultimately ending in his acquittal after setting aside conviction/sentence under S.7 recorded against him. Supreme Court invoking powers under S.250 read with Art.187 of the Constitution and ordering that Government of Punjab would pay compensation of Rs.100,000 to the convict who was acquitted by Supreme Court after setting aside conviction/sentence under S.7 of the Act recorded against him.

NLR 2007 SD 761. Bashir Ahmad & another V/S The State (Lahore DB)

S.544-A CrPC. S.302(c) PPC. Compensation to legal heirs of deceased would be wrongly awarded by trial court U/S 544-A when both parties had received serious injuries. High Court on appeal setting aside order of trial court awarding compensation u/s 544-A. ORDER SET-ASIDE.

NLR 2007 SD 985. Noor Muhammad V/S The State (Lahore DB)

S.544A CrPC. S.302 PPC. Complainant would not be entitled to compensation under S.544-A when murder was committed under provocation. High Court in such case, setting aside compensation awarded by trial Court to complainant. COMPENSATION NOT ALLOWED.

NLR 2008 CrLJ 33. Muhammad Khalid V/S The State (Lahore DB)

S. 302 PPC. No sentence of fine has been provided by legislature for offence of murder. Sentence of fine imposed by trial court on accused set aside by High Court as not sustainable in law.

2008 YLR 260. Saifur Rehman V/S The State (Lahore DB)

S.302(b) & 302(c) PPC. Both the parties were armed at the time of occurrence and were engaged in free fight. Parties, however, had suppressed their respective roles before the Investigating Officer as well as before the trial court. Accused had acted in exercise of his right of self defence during the occurrence. Conviction of accused under section 302(b) PPC was consequently altered to section 302(c) PPC and he was sentenced to 14 years’ RI thereunder in circumstances. Accused having committed the murder while exercising the right of self-defence, sentence of compensation was set aside. SENTENCE REDUCED.

NLR 2008 CrLJ 239. Ayaz Khan V/S The State (Karachi)

S.302 PPC does not empower the court to impose fine on accused. Imposition of fine by trial court after conviction of accused U/S 302 set aside by High Court as not sustainable in law. CONVICTION UPHELD.

2008 PCrLJ 768. Abdul Hameed V/S The State (Lahore)

S.302/34, 309 & 331 PPC. Role attributed to accused was that he at the time of occurrence was empty-handed and he along with his co-accused had raised Lalkara instigating his co-accused to fire at deceased. Nothing was recovered from accused during investigation and he was found innocent. During trial, though legal heirs of deceased made statements with regard to their compromise with accused but accused contested the case and cross-examined prosecution witnesses to challenge their credibility. Trial court acquitted the accused but directed him to pay Diyat to minor son of the deceased. Plea raised by accused was that he did not opt for compromise and should have been acquitted on merits--- Validity---- Plea raised by accused that he never opted for compromise with complainant party was supported from record. Accused was entitled to get acquittal on merits and judgment of trial court to the extent of acquittal of accused on the basis of compromise was set aside. Accused was not liable to pay any Diyat amount as fixed by trial court in the judgment and he was acquitted from the charge on merits. APPEAL ALLOWED

NLR 2008 CrLJ 454.Ahmad Daudul Hussaini V/S The State (SC)

S.64, 65 and 71 PPC. Sentence of imprisonment awarded by Trial court in default of payment of fine which shall exceed more than 1/4 of maximum sentence awarded by trial court to accused would be violative of the provisions of S.71. In such case, order that sentences of imprisonment in default of payment of fine shall run consecutively modified by Supreme Court with direction that sentence in default of payment of fine shall run concurrently with sentence of imprisonment for offence U/S 420 PPC.

PLD 2008 Lahore (DB) 497.. Shaheen Tahir V/S Superintendent Central Jail

S.544-A CrPC. Compensation to the heirs of the person killed etc. Sentence in lieu of non-payment of compensation, nature of--- Sub-section (3) of S.544-A CrPC provides that compensation shall be in addition to any sentence which the court may impose for the offence of which the person directed to pay compensation has been convicted. Payment of compensation thus shall be treated separately from the substantive sentence or punishment of fine. Payment of compensation is a third separate liability on the accused. Sentence in lieu of non-payment of compensation under S.544-A CrPC is separate and in addition to the substantive punishments and punishment in lieu of non-payment of fine. (2) S.64 PPC. Sentence of imprisonment for non-payment of fine. Meaning expounded. Imprisonment in lieu of non-payment of fine is in excess of any other imprisonment i.e. substantive sentence and runs in addition to the substantive sentence after it is completed. Sentence in lieu of non-payment of fine cannot run concurrently with the substantive sentence. (3) S.64 & 65 PPC. S.35 & 544-A CrPC. Classification as to which sentences to run concurrently and which to run consecutively. Sentence of imprisonment in lieu of default of payment of fine is a separate and distinct punishment and is in addition to the main sentence or substantive sentence. Section 65 PPC does not provide minimum but contemplates maximum i.e. not more than 1/4th of a sentence actually passed by trial court. Section 35 CrPC empowers trial court to allow substantive sentences to run concurrently, but this power is not conferred upon it in case of sentence or sentences provided in lieu of default of payment of fine. No court has power to direct that sentence in default of payment of fine shall run concurrently with substantive sentences or even when sentences of fine are awarded for more than one offences. Section 65 PPC only governs the question of sentence in lieu of default in payment of fine and S.35 CrPC only deals with the substantive punishments. Section 65 PPC refers to 1/4th of a “sentence” and not of “sentences”. Similarly compensation awarded under S.544-A CrPC shall be in addition to any sentence which the court may impose for the offences of which the person directed to pay compensation has been convicted, which is a separate liability and has to be dealt separately. Sentence inflicted in lieu of non-payment of compensation, therefore, shall also not run concurrently and shall be counted separately and shall run consecutively.—Mian Khan V/S Government of the Punjab and others 2005 PCrLJ 627 dissented from. APPEAL DISMISSED.

2009 MLD 220. Bacha Muhammad V/S The State (Peshawar DB)

S.302(b) PPC. Amount of fine had been wrongly awarded to accused as under the law there was no provision of imposing fine under S.302 PPC. Said amount was converted into compensation amount under S.544-A CrPC which would be payable to the legal heirs of deceased, recoverable as arrears of land revenue. CONVICTION MAINTAINED

2009 PCrLJ 1165. Muhammad Afzal V/S The State (Lahore)

S.250 CrPC. False, frivolous or vexatious accusations--- Compensation --- Acquittal of accused from false, frivolous or vexatious complaint. Procedure for awarding compensation stated. (2) Compensation could be awarded when the court was of the opinion that complaint was not only false but either frivolous or vexatious. In the absence of any of the elements, awarding the compensation would not be proper. While awarding of compensation related to penal actions against the complainant, court ought to have passed order of imprisonment in default of payment of compensation. (3) S.250 CrPC. S.324/436/34 & 109 PPC. Complainant was drected to pay compensation to accused for making false and frivolous accusations----Validity---Trial Magistrate, after acquitting the accused in the case, had straightaway imposed upon the complainant compensation of Rs.25,000 payable to accused, to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. No separate order had been passed in this regard except issuance of a Robkar to the Tehsildar for the recovery of the said compensation. Although complainant had replied the notice, yet the Magistrate without considering his contentions and without giving any reasons to refute his version, had passed the impugned order. Magistrate was required under the law to determine the liability of the complainant by a separate specific order, which aspect of the matter had even been ignored by Sessions Court, while dismissing the appeal of the complainant. Impugned orders were consequently set aside being not tenable in the eyes of law and the case was remitted to the trial Magistrate to pass a fresh order after considering the rply filed by the complainant petitioner in response to show cause notice. REVISION ALLOWED.