1987 PLP 2037 (SCMR)
MASKEEN ALI and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD LATIF and 6 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 2037 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MASKEEN ALI and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD LATIF and 6 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2037 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 2037 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 2037 (SCMR) (MASKEEN ALI and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD LATIF and 6 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Akram Khokhar, Advocate Supreme Court and Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd August, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 1‑2‑1982 in Criminal Revision No. 50 of 1982). ‑‑‑S. 345‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.307, 326, 324 & 148‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Reduction in sentence on account of compromise‑‑Subsequent denial of compromise‑‑Effect of‑‑Three out of four injured complainants making statement that they had entered into a compromise with accused‑respondents and had forgiven them‑‑Trial Court reducing sentence of respondents‑ Order impugned‑‑Plea that there was no compromise, not sustained in view of clear recital to that effect appearing in judgment of Trial Court‑‑Statements of three injured persons were sufficient to establish factum of compromise, particularly when the fourth one was a female member of their family residing in same house and her failure to appear in person before Trial Court did not imply that there had been no compromise‑‑Sentence of respondents having been reduced consequent upon a compromise between parties, Supreme Court declined to interfere‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The respondents were convicted of offences under sections 307, 326 and 324, read with section 149, and section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer various terms of imprisonment by a Magistrate at Sheikhupura. They filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge. During the course of hearing of the appeal, three out of the four injured persons made a statement that they had entered into a compromise with the respondents and had forgiven them. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that only one of the respondents, namely, Muhammad Latif could be convicted of the offence under section 307; accordingly, he upheld his conviction on this count but acquitted the other respondents of this offence. He maintained the convictions of all the respondents on other counts, that is those under sections 326, 324 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Taking notice of the compromise between the parties, he reduced the sentences of all respondents including Muhammad Latif to the periods of imprisonment already suffered by them but increased the amounts of fines. The complainant party filed a revision petition in the High Court but without any success. It now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition all that has been contended is that there had been no compromise between the parties and the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in reducing the sentences of respondents on this account.
3. It is difficult to accept the assertion that there had been no compromise in view of the clear recital to this effect appearing in the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Four persons were injured during the course of occurrence. No doubt one of them, namely, Mst. Salamat Bibi did not appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge but then the statement made by the other three, namely, Muhammad Siddique, Maskeen and Barkat Bibi were sufficient to establish the factum of compromise. It may be mentioned that Mst. Salamat Bibi was the sister of Muhammad Siddique and resided with him. He was clearly head of the family for Mst. Barkat Bibi was his wife and Maskeen was his son. In the circumstances the failure of Mst. Salamat Bibi to appear in person before the Additional Sessions Judge did not imply that there had been no compromise.
4. Since the sentences of the respondents were reduced consequent upon a compromise between the parties, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court. Leave is refused. M.I./M‑195/S Petition dismissed.