2012 PLP 437 (SCMR)

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.

The learned Attorney-General for Pakistan as well as the learned Additional Advocates-General, Punjab, have addressed their arguments on the questions framed by this Court.

2. Mr. Bilal Siddique Kamyana, CPO Faisalabad, has submitted a report, according to which investigation is being conducted against the accused persons namely Rana Imran and others, who are allegedly involved in the case F.I.R. No. 1015, dated 5-9-2011, under sections 302, 148 and 149, P.P.C., Police Station Gulberg, Faisalabad, registered on the complaint of Shahid Ali, an electrician by profession, whose son Bilal aged about 12 years was allegedly murdered, when he along with the deceased and his nephew were engaged for electrification on the marriage function of Adnan Aslam.

3. In respect of the allegation of the complainant that he was pressurized to enter into a compromise with the accused persons in lieu whereof he was initially paid Rs.100,000; later on Rs.150,000, whereas an amount of Rs.400,000 was not given to him against the total settlement of Rs.650,000 but it was paid after taking notice by this Court. The bail of Rana Imran already granted to him in the said murder case in pursuance whereof he was allowed to be released on personal surety bond was cancelled, as against him (Rana Imran) and another, the complainant alleged that he was pressurized to enter into the compromise.

4. It appears that a case under section 214, P.P.C. was also registered against four persons namely Ghulam Sarwar, Zafar Iqbal, Waheed Ahmed and Khawaja Islam. Statedly, on 6-12-2011, Ghulam Sarwar and Zafar Iqbal have been arrested, whereas the remaining accused persons namely Khawaja Islam and Waheed Ahmed have obtained bail from the High Court on 12-12-2011. When we have inquired from the learned Additional Advocate-General as to why the remaining two persons have not been arrested, he stated that steps are being taken to do the needful. We have noticed that as far as Ghulam Sarwar and Zafar Iqbal are concerned, after their arrest, under section 214, P.P.C. they were entitled to be released on bail, which is bailable and non-compoundable offence. We prima facie are of the opinion that in view of the facts and circumstances, it seems to be a case of coercion, harassment and compulsion because after making the payment of Rs.250,000 a cheque amounting to Rs.400,000 was given to the complainant from the account of one Muhammad Ahmed for the purpose of entering into compromise and meanwhile the matter came before this Court, therefore, the remaining payment of Rs.400,000 was made to the complainant.

5. Be that as it may, it is for the investigating agency to conduct the case properly with full determination and commitment instead of unnecessarily allowing concession to the persons, if they are involved in the commission of offence. However, as far as Ghulam Sarwar and Zafar Iqbal are concerned, if they furnish surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 each they should be released on bail forthwith.

6. Now turning towards the proposition of amount of DIYAT, it is to be noted that under section 323 of P.P.C., the object and purpose of recovery of DIYAT amount is that the victim should be compensated according to the rate which is prevailing at the time when the compromise is effected. The learned Attorney-General for Pakistan as well as the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, both have agreed that the date of compromise could be relevant for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation and not the date, when the offence was committed. In this behalf, reference is made to Abdul Ghafoor v. State (1992 SCMR 1218), Ali Sher v. State (1992 PCr.LJ 1583), Safdar Ali v. State (PLD 1991 Supreme Court 202), Niaz v. State (2009 PCr.LJ 1479). However, there is a judgment of Federal Shariat Court reported as Ali Dost v. State (2006 PCr.LJ 80) wherein fixation of amount of DIYAT and payment of amount of DIYAT in instalments was allowed, but we are of the view that while delivering the judgment by the Federal Shariat Court, the judgments noted hereinabove, were not considered. The minimum rate of the compensation of DIYAT amount is to be fixed by the Court, according to the notification, issued by the Federal Government, on every financial year, therefore, we are not inclined to agree with the opinion expressed in the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court. However, following the law laid down by this Court, referred to hereinabove, we declare that as far as the amount of DIYAT is concerned, the same shall be determined according to the prevailing rate of DIYAT at the time when the compromise is effected, because it is the accused who actually requests the victim party to favour him and if, as a result such favour is extended then according to the law, the payment of compensation should be determined and made at the rate prevailing at the time when the compromise is effected and executed by the Court.

7. Now turning to the other question regarding moveable and immovable properties. In this behalf, it is to be noted that according to explanation to section 310, P.P.C. the word property includes both the moveable and immoveable property, therefore, compensation equal to NISAB prevailing at the time when the compromise is effected after determining the value of the moveable and immoveable property can also be paid.

8. It is informed by the office that against the Judicial Officer, who had released the accused namely Rana Imran on his personal surety in a very casual manner, about whom the matter was referred to the learned Chief Justice, Lahore High Court, Lahore, disciplinary proceedings have already commenced.

9. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the matter stands disposed of with direction to the Court before whom the case is pending to dispose of the same expeditiously, as early as possible, but not later than a period of three months. M.H./S-2/SC Order accordingly.