YLRN 2017

2017 PLP 425 (YLRN)

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1 of 2016 in Criminal Appeal No.1070 of 2014, decided on 26th October, 2016.
Honorable Judges
Shahid Hameed Dar and Muhammad Qasim Khan, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2017 PLP 425 (YLRN)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Shahid Hameed Dar and Muhammad Qasim Khan, JJ
Parties MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 425 (YLRN)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 425 (YLRN)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Shahid Hameed Dar and Muhammad Qasim Khan, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 425 (YLRN) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Malik Ali Imran for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 426

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 452, 337-F(v), 337-F(vi), 337-A(i), 148 & 149

Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly

Suspension of sentence pending appeal

Convict had not caused any harm to deceased during the occurrence and according to prosecution case he fired at the injured

Convict was acquitted under S.302 Penal Code, 1860

Complainant and injured witness had categorically submitted that they had compounded the offence and forgiven the convict in the name of Almighty Allah

All the offences were compoundable with the consent of court but for the offence under S. 452 Penal Code, 1860, for which he had been sentenced to three years' R.I.

Convict had already served the sentence of three years

Offence being not compoundable did not come in the way of spirit of parties, whereby, they had decided to bury the hatchet and live in peace in future

Sentence of convict was suspended. [Para. 6 of the judgment] Humayoun Aslam, Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab for the State.

Judgment & Decree

SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.

This petition is still at the motion stage. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab and learned counsel for the complainant have entered appearance on behalf of the State and the complainant respectively, and accepted the notice hereof.

2. Muhammad Hussaln (petitioner-convict) was held guilty for offences under sections 324, 452, 337-A(i), 337-A(iii), 337-F(iii), P.P.C. and awarded various terms of imprisonment and fine etc. maximum being seven years under section 324, P.P.C. vide judgment dated 30.05.2014, passed by learned Addl: Sessions Judge, Chunian (Kasur) on conclusion of his trial in private complaint-case under sections 302, 324, 452, 148, 149, 337-F(v), 337-F(vi), 337-A(i), P.P.C., Police Station Kanganpur, Tehsil Chunian (Kasur).

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner, Muhammad Hussain has submitted that compromise has been effected between the parties and Akbar Ali, who had been fired at and injured by the petitioner, has forgiven him in the name of the Almighty Allah, beside, the complainant Muhammad Ashiq has also forgiven him due to indulgence of the elders of the area.

4. Akbar Ali, also known as Ali Akbar, the injured PW and Muhammad Ashiq (complainant) have submitted in unison that they have forgiven Muhammad Hussain (petitioner) in the name of the Almighty, after having been persuaded by the elders of the area and they have no objection if his plea for suspension of sentence was accorded and he was set at liberty on the basis of compromise. They have tendered their sworn affidavits (Mark-A & Mark-B) in fortification of their oral assertion, as regards the composition of offences, which are placed on the record. They have exclusively owned the contents thereof. Their learned counsel shared their viewpoint and submitted that the petitioner may be granted the relief sought after.

5. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab, though, also looked pleased with the rapprochement grown, yet he lukewarmly submitted that one of the offences under section 452, P.P.C. was not compoundable.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the petitioner did not do any harm to Muhammad Sharif (deceased) during the occurrence and according to the prosecution case he fired at and injured Akbar Ali, who appeared as PW-6 during the trial. He has been acquitted under section 302, P.P.C., hence, it would be the said injured witness and the complainant Muhammad Ashiq PW-3, who would be relevant for taking into account the factum of compromise between the parties. Both, Akbar Ali and Muhammad Ashiq (complainant) have categorically submitted that they have compounded the offence and forgiven the petitioner Muhammad Hussain in the name of the Almighty Allah and they have no objection if his sentence was suspended and he was released on bail. All the offences, the petitioner has been convicted for are compoundable with the consent of the court but for the offence under section 452, P.P.C., whereunder he has been sentenced to three years R.I. He has been in jail since 30.05.2014 and might have served the sentence of three years by now. Even otherwise, the nature of this offence, being not compoundable may not come in the way of noble spirit of the parties, whereby, they have decided to bury the hatchet and live in peace in future. The compromise, in every situation, may be deemed a redeeming feature that would bring peace and harmony in the society. If the elders of the locality have persuaded the parties to forget their differences and come close to each other, let them be brought still closer inter se by the court. Their gesture of compounding the offence is thus accredited to.

7. For the foregoing reasons, this application is accepted, the sentence of the petitioner is. suspended and he shall be released from the jail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. The petitioner is directed to appear before this court on each and every date of hearing of the main appeal. WA/M-209/L Sentence suspended.