2019 PLP 125 (MLD)
SHER AWAN and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2019 PLP 125 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHER AWAN and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 125 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 125 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 125 (MLD) (SHER AWAN and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Munir Ahmad and Imtiaz Hussain for Petitioners.
- 5. The learned Additional Advocate General has no objection if the compromise is accepted by this Court.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 497, 426 & 345(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 337-A, 114 & 34
Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, hurt, abettor present when offence committed, common intention
Suspension of sentence on basis of compromise
Accused was convicted by Trial Court but a valid and genuine compromise had been effected between the parties and statements of legal heirs/victims of the occurrence had been separately recorded and placed on the file
Offences of murder and hurt were compoundable by virtue of S.345(2), Cr.P.C. and there was no legal hitch to accept the compromise
Court was to give effect to a compromise so as to encourage the parties who effected compromise only to maintain peace, tranquility and harmony in the area in general and between effected parties in particular
Bail was granted accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
The petitioners were booked for the offences under sections 302/324/337-A/114/34, P.P.C. vide FIR No. 03/2014 and FIRs No.04/2014 and 05/2014 under section 13 A.O. registered at Police Station Juglote, District Gilgit.
2. The petitioners stood trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gilgit and on conclusion of trial, they were found guilty and petitioner No.1 was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and awarded life imprisonment and he was also convicted under section 13 A.O. and awarded six months R.I. and Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) fine under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. was imposed. Petitioner No.2 was awarded 7 years R.I. under section 324, 6 months R.I. under section 337(F) I, 6 months R.I under section 13 A.O. and Rs.100000/- (one lac) as Damman was also imposed on appellant No.2. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. were extended to both the appellants.
3. The petitioner challenged the conviction handed down by the trial by filing a Criminal appeal bearing No.21/2015, which is sub judice before this Court.
4. The learned counsel filed Criminal Misc. No.02/2017 under section 497, Cr.P.C. along with an application under section 426, Cr.P.C. for suspicion of sentence on the ground that a compromise has been effected between the legal heirs of the deceased Riza Ullah and all the injured persons. The legal heirs of the deceased Riza Ullah namely Raji-ur-Rehmat (father), his wife namely Nelma Begum are present in Court. Their statements separately recorded and placed on file. The mother of deceased has gone to her account and the deceased has no issue from the wedlock. All the legal heirs/victims stated in categorical terms that they have affected a valid compromise and have no objection if the petitioners are release from Jail.
5. The learned Additional Advocate General has no objection if the compromise is accepted by this Court.
6. As stated supra that a valid and genuine compromise has been effected between the parties and the statements of legal heirs/victims of the occurrence have been separately recorded and placed on the file. The offences of murder and hurts are compoundable by virtue of section 345(2), Cr.P.C. There is no legal hitch to accept the compromise.
7. In view of above, the petitioners are allowed bail subject to their furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000,00/- (ten lac) with two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of vacation Sessions Judge, Gilgit. The Cr. Appeal No.21/2015 may be placed before the bench on the date already fixed after winter Vacation. Needless to mention here that no exhaustive arguments required in compoundable offences and the Court should give effect to a compromise so as to encourage the parties, who effect compromise only to maintain, peace, tranquility and harmony in the area in general and between the effected parties in particular.
8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. WA/8/GB Bail allowed.