1987 PLP 3102 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD YASIN — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 3102 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khizar Hayat, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YASIN — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 3102 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 3102 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khizar Hayat, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 3102 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD YASIN — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhtar Shabbir for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 4th December, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
S.307--Compromise between parties, effect of--Conviction maintained but sentence reduced to one already undergone by accused--Illegality committed by lower Court in not imposing fine on accused while convicting him, rectified by imposing fine at appellate stage.- [Compromise]. Mushtaq Ahmad Farazi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Akhtar Shabbir for Appellant. Mushtaq Ahmad Farazi for the State. Date of hearing: 4th December, 1985. This appeal has been filed by Muhammad Yasin son of Charagh Din caste Kharal resident of Mauza Kalaywala, Minchinabad, district Bahawalnagar, who has been convicted under section 307, PPC by Magistrate Section 30, Haroonabad, vide his judgment dated 18-9-1985 for having caused a grievous injury with a sickle in the abdomen of Muhammad Rafiq PW and sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment. The appellant is in jail since then.
2. Muhammad Rafique, the injured PW, and Muhammad Khurshid, complainant in this case, are present in Court. They have filed affidavits dated 29-9-1985 saying that the elders of the family have brought about a compromise between the parties and that they have pardoned the appellant. They state that they have no objection if the appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is now well-settled that in such like cases if the parties effect compromise then the sentence of the convict is reduced to the period already undergone. The contention has force. However, I find that the lower Court while recording the sentence has committed illegality inasmuch as he has not imposed fine on the appellant whereas it is provided in section 307, PPC that besides the sentence of imprisonment the accused shall also be liable to fine. Learned counsel for the appellant having been confronted with this legal proposition states that he has no objection if the fine is now imposed by this Court.
3. In these circumstances, the conviction of the appellant is maintained. However, in view of the compromise the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone and pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, or in default to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. Fine, if realised shall be paid to the injured as compensation. With this modification in sentence the appeal is dismissed. S. A./M-385/L Order accordingly.