1995 P Cr (PLP)
SARDAR MASIH -Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1995 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SARDAR MASIH -Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 P Cr (PLP) (SARDAR MASIH -Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 304
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345
Compromise-- Heirs of the deceased had made statements showing compromise having been effected between the parties
Compromise seemed to be genuine and voluntary without any undue influence or coercion and the same was consequently accepted
Judgment & Decree
S. 304
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345
Compromise-- Heirs of the deceased had made statements showing compromise having been effected between the parties
Compromise seemed to be genuine and voluntary without any undue influence or coercion and the same was consequently accepted
Accused was acquitted of the charge accordingly. 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 rive years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.20,000 or in default S.I. for 1-1/2 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 of 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 District and Sessions Judge 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 outcome 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-551/L Order accordingly