Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM HUSSAIN VS Respondent: STATE
1987 S C M R 820
1987 S C M R 820
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain, S. A. Nusrat and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
GHULAM HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1987 in Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 161 of 1984, decided on 24th February, 1987.
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated l6r‑4‑1984, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 1981 and Murder Reference No. 161 of 1981).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Sentence of death‑ Compromise, mitigating circumstance‑‑Petitioner convicted and sentenced to death‑‑Parties compromising themselves freely and without any coercion in order to create goodwill and avoid further bitterness‑‑Complainant side sufficiently compensated‑‑Compromise taken as mitigating circumstance and sentence of death reduced to imprisonment for life‑ Conviction and fine maintained but benefit of S. 382‑B, Cr. P. C. allowed.‑ ‑[Compromise]
Rana Abdul Rahim Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
M. A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Complainant. Faiz Ahmad Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Date of hearing: 15th February, 1987
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑ Ghulam Hussain petitioner was tried and convicted alongwith some others for the murder of Ghulam Qasim, for which he was sentenced to death. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court vide judgment dated 16‑4‑1984 and his death sentence was confirmed.
2. Feeling aggrieved he filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. On the last date of hearing (15‑2‑1987) learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties had compromised the matter between themselves out of Court and that it was a fit case for taking the aforementioned compromise as a mitigating circumstance.
We, therefore, issued notice to the State and learned counsel for the complainant, who are present in Court.
Copy of the compromise deed has also been placed before us which is supported by the affidavits of:
(1) Mst. Nazir Mai (widow of the deceased).
(2) Ghulam Abbas complainant (first cousin of the deceased),
(3) Mst. Subal Mai (mother of deceased);
(4) Shabbir (first cousin of the deceased); and
(5) Mukhtar Hussain (nephew of the deceased).
It is stated by the petitioner's counsel that two sisters of the accused‑petitioner have been given in marriage to the two brothers of the deceased and further that 10 Acres of land has also been transferred by the accused party to the family of the deceased. This fact is admitted by the learned counsel for the complainant.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we feel that the complainant party has been sufficiently compensated and that they have arrived at a compromise between themselves freely without any coercion, in order to create goodwill and avoid further bitterness. We, therefore, convert this petition into, an appeal and taking the aforementioned compromise as a mitigating circumstance, allow the appeal partly to the extent that the sentence of death of the petitioner is reduced to imprisonment for life. He is further allowed the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. The sentence of fine under section 302, P.P.C., as well as sentences under section 323, P P C. are, however, maintained.
M.1. / G‑l I/S Order accordingly.