Free Help Here

Law Citations

                Important Law Citations
                         

Supreme Court rulings on compromise 345 crpc     2016  SCMR  291     SUPREME-COURT
KAREEM NAWAZ KHAN versus The STATE through PGP
S. 345 (7)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b) & 338-E---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7(a) & 21-L---Qatl-i-amd, act of terrorism---Waiver or compounding of offence---Scope---Conviction and death sentence recorded under S. 302(b), P.P.C. and S. 7(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Offence under S. 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was an independent one, which was non-compoundable, thus the sentence awarded under said provision of law was independent to other sentences under S. 302(b), P.P.C. etc., which may be compoundable in nature---In view of the bar contained in S. 345 (7), Cr.P.C., conviction of an accused under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 would remain intact despite COMPROMISE in other sentences in compoundable offence.

 2016  SCMR  116     SUPREME-COURT
 MUHAMMAD AMIN versus State
S. 302(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 345 ---Qatl-i-amd--- Death as Ta'zir--- Partial COMPROMISE --- Effect--- Partial COMPROMISE may not have any bearing upon conviction of an accused person in a case of Ta'zir but it may have, in the circumstances of a given case, some relevance to the question of sentence in such a case.

 2016  SCMR  116     SUPREME-COURT
 MUHAMMAD AMIN   Versus State
S. 302(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 345 ---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Death sentence reduced to imprisonment for life---Absence of premeditation to murder---Prosecution witness contradicting the complainant---Incomplete COMPROMISE between legal heirs of deceased and accused---FIR itself stated that accused had not straightaway launched an assault upon the deceased, but the same was preceded by an altercation and exchange of abuses at the spot, which showed that the situation had taken an ugly turn at the spot in the absence of any premeditation on part of the accused---Complainant was not an eye-witness to the occurrence---According to the FIR, the complainant stated that he was informed about the incident by a witness, however said witness contradicted the complainant during trial by stating that he did not see the occurrence---Another factor having bearing upon the question of sentence of accused was that the husband of the deceased, on his own behalf as well as on behalf of minor children of the deceased, had forgiven the accused and entered into a COMPROMISE , which COMPROMISE could not be given effect by courts below as it was incomplete--- Such incomplete/partial COMPROMISE may have relevance to the question of sentence of an accused in a case of Ta'zir---Supreme Court, in such circumstances, reduced accused's sentence of death to imprisonment for life---Appeal was disposed of accordingly.


2016  PLD  347     SUPREME-COURT
TARIQ MEHMOOD Versus NASEER AHMED
S. 345 (1) & (2)---Compounding of offence with and without permission of court---Principles---Section 345 (1), Cr.P.C. enlisted the offences which may be compounded by the specified persons without intervention of any court---Compounding in such cases took effect from the moment the COMPROMISE was completely entered into by the parties, the relevant court which was to try the offence in issue was left with no jurisdiction to refuse to give effect to such a COMPROMISE and a party to such a COMPROMISE could not resile from the COMPROMISE at any subsequent stage of the case---On the other hand S.345 (2), Cr.P.C. dealt with cases in which the offences specified therein could be compounded only with the permission of the court and in all such cases any COMPROMISE arrived at between the parties on their own at any stage was not to take effect at all unless the court permitted such COMPROMISE to be given effect to and the relevant court for the purpose was the court before which prosecution for the relevant offence was pending.