Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: FALAK SHER VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Khawaja Muhammad SharifJustin Gill,Nemo
2006 P Cr
2006 P Cr. L J 952
[Lahore]
Before Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J
FALAK SHER----Appellant
Versus
THE STATE----Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.2254 of 2003, heard on 24th March, 2006.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 345---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302(b) & 311---Appreciation of evidence---Compromise arrived at between accused and legal heirs of deceased---During pendency of appeal, an application was filed for acquittal of accused on basis of compromise arrived at between accused and legal heirs of deceased---In the report called from Sessions Judge regarding genuineness of said compromise it was stated that compromise was arrived at between parties for mutual harmony---No reason existed not to accept said compromise, which appeared to be genuine and without coercion and was according to settled principles laid down by superior Courts---Accepting said compromise, appeal was allowed and impugned judgment was set aside and accused was acquitted from the case and was ordered to be released.
Justin Gill for Appellant.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing; 24th March, 2006.
JUDGMENT
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 24-11-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shorkot (Jhang) whereby, after having tried the appellant, he was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life as Tazir with a further direction to pay an amount of Rs.50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased in default whereof to further undergo S.I. for six months as provided under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to him.
2. During the pendency of the titled appeal, appellant filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.162/M of 2006 for acquittal on the basis of A compromise, whereupon, report was called for from the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang regarding genuineness of the compromise, who, vide letter No.285 dated 13-3-2006, reported as under:
"(2) The statements of Mst. Bashiran Bibi, dominic and Younas have been recorded on oath on 6-3-2006, wherein they have stated that they have compromised with the accused/convict Flak Sher, the offence of murder of their father voluntarily in the name of Almighty Allah without receiving any compensation and without any compulsion and coercion and besides them George (deceased) left behind Suseelia (widow), Tasilia (daughter) and Pervaiz, Yousaf, Nadeem (sons) as his legal heirs. They have got no objection if the accused/convict Falak Sher is acquitted of the charge.
(3) In consequence of notice issued against the legal heirs of the deceased, they appeared on 10-3-2006 before this Court and got recorded their statements on oath wherein Mst. Suseelia (widow) Mst. Tasilia (daughter) and Pervaiz, Yousuf and Nadeem (sons) of George deceased have staled that a compromise has been effected with the accused/convict, namely, Falak Sher without receiving any compensation and that the compromise is voluntary and without any compulsion and duress from any quarter. They have also got no objection if the accused/convict is acquitted of the charge.
(4) In my humble opinion, the compromise between the legal heirs of the deceased and the accused/convict Falak Sher is voluntary and genuine and they have no objection to the acceptance of the appeal/criminal miscellaneous filed by him who was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court...."
3. After having gone through the report of the learned Sessions Judge quoted above and the statements annexed therewith it appears that the compromise has arrived at between the parties for mutual harmony. This Court seems no reason not to accept the same as it appears that the same is genuine and without any coercion coupled with the fact that it is B according to the settled principles of the superior Courts of the country including the apex Court and seems no reason either to convict the appellant under section 311, P.P.C. Resultantly, this compromise is accepted, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside, the appellant is acquitted from the case and he is directed to be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.
H.B.T./F-11/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.