1995 PLP 1143 (MLD)
SARDAR MASIH alias DARA MASIH‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1143 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Muhammad Zubair, J |
| Parties | SARDAR MASIH alias DARA MASIH‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1143 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 1143 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Muhammad Zubair, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 1143 (MLD) (SARDAR MASIH alias DARA MASIH‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Ghulam Rasool for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 13th June, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 304 & 279‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 561‑A & 345‑‑ Compromise‑‑‑Heirs of the deceased had effected a compromise with the accused which seemed to be genuine and voluntary‑‑‑Compromise was consequently accepted and the accused was acquitted of the charge under S.304, P.P.C.‑‑‑Accused had already undergone six months' imprisonment under S.279, P.P.C. which was not compoundable and he was directed to be released in circumstances. Malik Muhammad Aslam for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Ghulam Rasool for Appellant. Malik Muhammad Aslam for the State. Date of hearing: 13th June, 1994. Sardar Masih appellant was convicted by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Sargodha under section 279, P.P.C. and awarded six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default two months R.I. He was also awarded five years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 20,000 or in default S.I. for 1‑ years, under section 304, P.P.C. The learned trial Court passed the order that both the abovementioned substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The appellant‑applicant submitted an application under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. for accepting the compromise which he had effected with Wali Dad and Mst. Said Begum, father and mother respectively or Muhammad Jehangir deceased, who was unmarried. The statement of Wali Dad was recorded by me on 27‑3‑1994 in the Court whereas for recording the statement of Mst. Said Begum, the matter was referred to the District and Sessions Judge, Chakwal. The learned D and SJ has sent the statement dated 5‑6‑1994 in which Mst. Said Begum has accepted the execution of the compromise.
3. I have examined the compromise and perused the aforesaid statement. The compromise seems to be genuine and voluntary and is not out‑come of undue influence or coercion. I, therefore, accept the compromise. On acceptance of the compromise the conviction and sentences of the appellant- applicant under section 304, P.P.C. are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge.
4. The offence under section 279, P.P.C. is not compoundable. As observed above, both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant is behind the bars since 14‑2‑1993. As such he has already undergone the sentence of 6 months awarded to him under section 279, P.P.C. and also the sentence in lieu of fine. I direct that the appellant should be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case N.H.Q./S‑685/L Compromise accepted.