| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 481 2018 SLD 481 2018 PLD 11 |
Balochistan High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 287 of 2014 and Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 119 of 2016, decision Date : 20-7-2017, hearing Date : 11-5-2017.
NAZEER AHMED LANGOVE, JUSTICE, JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, JUSTICE
Muhammad Aslam Chishti and Zahoor Ahmed Baloch for Appellant. Qazi Mushtaq, A.P.G. for the
Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 287 of 2014 and Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 119 of 2016, decision Date : 20-7-2017, hearing Date : 11-5-2017.
NAZEER AHMED LANGOVE, JUSTICE, JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, JUSTICE
Muhammad Aslam Chishti and Zahoor Ahmed Baloch for Appellant. Qazi Mushtaq, A.P.G. for the
Respondents.
INNAYATULLAH
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 345---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 311 & 34---Compromise---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, tazir after waiver or compounding of right to qisas in qatl-i-amd---Invalid compromise---Effect---Prosecution case was that accused party assaulted on complainant party as a result of which two persons of complainant party died on the spot and three sustained injuries---Matter was compromised between the parties during trial---Legal heirs of the deceased and injured appeared before the Trial Court and verified the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties---Accused was acquitted of the charge under Ss.302, 324 & 34, P.P.C., in pursuance of the compromise, however, convicted under S.311, P.P.C. for the reasons that offence was fasad fil Arz---Accused filed appeal for setting aside the conviction and sentence under S.311, P.P.C.---Complainant also moved appeal and contended that compromise was the outcome of duress, coercion and pressure as such, the same could not be termed as "compromise" falling within the purview of S.345(2), Cr.P.C.---Validity---Record showed that accused was hardened, dangerous criminal and member of a gang, who had committed heinous crimes and made hostage the entire area---In the present case, legal heirs of the deceased had come forward with the claim that the compromise deed filed in the Trial Court was the result of pressure, coercion and continuous threats---Accused was a habitual offender, no one dared to come forward against him and his family and the compromise in question was the result of pressure, coercion and continuous life threats to the complainant and his family including children and women folk---High Court observed that present case in such a situation, could not be taken lightly and had to be resolved as per law---Every effort was to be made to discover that compromise was genuine when possibilities of coercion or pressure by powerful persons to agree to compromise existed---Such important aspect of the matter had escaped notice of the Trial Court---Trial Court was to observe the conduct and demeanor of the accused, particularly in the case of…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492