Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NOSHER ALIAS NOSHA VS Respondent: THE STATE
1992 M L D 1852
1992 M L D 1852
[Lahore]
Before Sardar Muhammad Dogar and Khalilur‑Rehman Ramday, JJ
NOSHER alias NOSHA‑‑‑Appellant
versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Crl. Appeal No.235 and M.R. No.155 of 1991, decided on 16th March, 1992
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss.302 & 309 [as substituted by Criminal Law (Fourth Amendment) Ordinance (XXX of 1991))‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345‑‑ Compromise ‑‑‑Statements made by legal heirs of the deceased in Court showed that they had granted UFW to accused for the murder of deceased and that the compromise reached between the parties was voluntary‑‑‑Nothing was available cm record either to persuade the Court not to accept the compromise or to award punishment to accused by way of Tazir‑‑‑Composition of the offence through UFW was consequently allowed and the accused was acquitted in circumstances.
Muhammad Anwar Sipra foe Appellant.
Sami Ullah Khan for A.‑G. Punjab for the State
Date of hearing: 16th March. 1992.
JUDGMENT
KHALIL‑UR‑REHMAN RAMDAY, J.‑‑‑Nosher, Samand, Hamad, Toraij and Bashir were tried by a learned A.SJ. of Faisalabad for having allegedly committed the murder of one Muhammad Amin.
2. Through his judgment, dated 6‑3‑1991, the said learned Court acquitted Samand, Hamad, Toraij and Bashir, of the said charge but found Nosher guilty of the same and after convicting under section 302, P.P.C. sentenced him to death. with a fine of Rs.5,000 or two years' R.I. in default. He had been further directed to, pay a sum of Rs.10,000 as compensation to the heirs of the deceased or to undergo six months' R.I. in default of payment of compensation.
3. Murder Reference No.155 of 1991 seeks confirmation of the said sentence of death awarded to Nosher convict who in turn challenges the conviction and sentences abovenoticed through Crl. Appeal No.235 of 1991.
4. Both these matters are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
5. During the pendency of these matters before us, Crl. Misc. No .2 of 1992 was filed stating therein that the heirs of Muhammad Amin deceased had compounded the offence in question with the present appellant and that the said appellant be, in the circumstances, acquitted.
6. Dilmeer (father), Mst. Tajan (mother), Muhammad War (brother), Muhammad Ashraf (brother) and Mst. Nekan Bibi (sister) have been produced before us in support of the abovementioned compromise.
7. From the statements of all these heirs which have been separately recorded, it has transpired that Muhammad Amin deceased was a bachelor at the time of his murder and that he had been survived only by his father, mother, two brothers and a sister above‑described.
8. All these heirs stated before us on oath that they had granted UFW to Nosher appellant for the murder of Muhammad Amin deceased and prayed that Nosher appellant be consequently acquitted. It was further stated before us that Muhammad Ashraf, the abovementioned brother of Muhammad Amin deceased alongwith his other relatives, had murdered one Liaqat who was a brother of Nosher appellant. It is the murder of this Liaqat which was set up as a motive for the present occurrence.
9. It was further stated on oath that the heirs of the said Liaqat had also forgiven the said Ashraf who stood sentenced to imprisonment for life and who has since been acquitted and released as a result of the said compromise.
10. From the above‑mentioned statements recorded by us, we are satisfied, that the compromise reached between the parties is voluntary and there is nothing on record which could persuade us not to accept this compromise or to award punishment to Nosher appellant by way of TAZIR.
11. In the circumstances, we allow composition of the offence in question through UFW and acquit Nosher appellant of the charge in question after setting aside the impugned conviction and sentences recorded against him by the learned trial Court, as envisaged by the provisions of section 345, Cr.P.C.
12. Nosher appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.
13. Crl. Appeal No.235 of 1991 is thus allowed in the above terms and Murder Reference No.155 of 1991 is accordingly answered.
14. The record of the present case has not yet been printed and we have decided these matters after dispensing with the requirement regarding the printing of the said record.
N.H.Q./N‑55/L Appeal allowed.