Summary: Background:The petitioner, Shakeel Abbas, was convicted under section 302 (b) of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing the death of his two minor sons.The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment, with orders for the sentences to run concurrently, and directed payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.On appeal, the High Court acquitted the petitioner of murder charges but convicted him under section 316 PPC (causing death by neglect).The State did not challenge the acquittal under section 302 (b) PPC or seek enhancement of the sentence.---Issues:Whether the conviction under section 316 PPC is sustainable if there was no "intent to cause harm to the body."If the conviction under section 316 PPC is not sustainable, whether the petitioner could still be convicted under sections 319 PPC or 321 PPC.Whether the petitioner can be detained indefinitely if he fails to pay diyat (compensation) due to poverty, and if such detention aligns with Islamic principles.Whether notifications under section 323 PPC adequately consider the financial position of convicts.Interpretation of Rule 11 of the Diyat, Arsh and Daman Fund Rules, 2007 regarding "part payment" and detention of convicts.---Outcome:Leave to appeal is granted to consider the raised issues.Mr. Sagheer Ahmed Qadri is appointed as counsel for the petitioner at State expense.Notices are issued to various parties, including the Attorney General for Pakistan, Advocate General Punjab, and others, to obtain their opinions and submissions on the raised issues.

Summary: Background:Syed Azhar Hussain Shah was convicted and sentenced by a trial court for offenses under sections 324, 334, and 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). Upon appeal, the Court of Session upheld most of the convictions and sentences but reduced the sentence under section 324, PPC. The appellant filed a revision petition before the High Court, which upheld the convictions and sentences. Subsequently, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted leave to appeal on specific legal questions.---Issues:Whether a Magistrate empowered under sections 30 and 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) is competent to try offenses punishable with Diyat or Arsh, considering these punishments are newly introduced under Qisas and Diyat laws.Whether a trial conducted by such a Magistrate, awarding Diyat or Arsh, would be without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.Whether the recent amendment conferring jurisdiction on Magistrates to award Arsh and Daman excludes Diyat.Whether the Diyat amount can exceed that fixed for Qatl-e-Amad, and which court has jurisdiction in such cases.Whether injuries to internal organs not specifically mentioned in relevant provisions of the PPC can be equated to those mentioned.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The trial by a Magistrate empowered under section 30 of the Cr.P.C. for offenses under sections 324, 334, and 336, PPC, was valid as per jurisdictional provisions.The limitation on the sentence a Magistrate can pass does not affect their jurisdiction to try an offense.The issue of Diyat is irrelevant to cases where the victim survives.The appellant's guilt was established through consistent eyewitness and medical evidence.The appeal was dismissed, convictions and sentences upheld, and the benefit of concurrent sentences granted to the appellant.---Citations/Precedents:Allah Wasaya and others v. Sikandar Hayat and others (2012 SCMR 193)Second Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898Section 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 299, 323, 382-B of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC)---Quote:Section 34 of Cr.PC provides that the Court of a Magistrate specially empowered under section 30 of Cr.PC may pass any sentence authorized by the law except the sentence of death or imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years but that limitation on the sentence to be passed by a Magistrate only regulates the punishment and not the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to try an offence.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 309, 310, 311 & 323---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345---Qatl-eamd---Compromise---Waiver---Afw of Qisas---Payment of Badal-e-Sulh---Compromise wasarrived at between accused and legal heirs of the deceased, whereby legal heirs of the deceasedhad waived their right of Qisas without accepting any Diyat or compensation, and prayed thataccused be acquitted of the charge---Genuineness of compromise arrived at between the partieswas duly verified by the Sessions Judge---Out of nine legal heirs of the deceased two wereminors---Mother of said minors appeared before the court and recorded her statement on theirbehalf, with the assertion that she had waived the right of Qisas on behalf of the minors beingtheir mother and natural guardian, and that she had forgone the Diyat---Validity---In view ofS.309, P.P.C., there could be no waiver of right of Qisas to the extent of minors, only rightavailable would be compounding of right of Qisas, which could be exercised by 'Wali' of minoron their behalf---Such right was further protected by the Proviso contained in subsection (2) ofS.309, P.P.C.; there must be an acceptance of "Badal-e-Sulh" and value of the same would not beless than the value of Diyat---Waiver of right of Qisas by mother of the minors on their behalfwithout accepting any compensation, was neither legal nor just---Condition provided in S.310,P.P.C. of "Badal-e-Sulh", was to be observed being a legal requirement and withoutdetermination of value of "Badal-e-Sulh", the right of Qisas could not be allowed to becompounded---Settlement arrived at between the parties only would amount to waiver or compounding of right of Qisas, and order of acquittal was not its ultimate result---Discretion laywith the court to make an order of acquittal or conviction of the offender, keeping in view thefacts and circumstances of the case and nature of the offence---Accused was acquitted of thecharge under S.302(b), P.P.C.; he would remain in custody until he paid the amount of 'Badal-eSulh' determined as Rs.32,00,000 as per requirement of S.311, P.P.C.---Said amount would bedeposited in the National Savings in the names of minors in equal shares until they attainedmajority.

Summary: Sections 310, 323, 331 PPC. Determination of Diyat, Mode of its payment, specifying shares of minors on acceptance of compromise.The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the trial court should have allowed the payment of Diyat amount in the form of landed property, considering the financial position of the petitioners. It was further asserted that the matter had already been compromised between the parties, and the major Walis (legal heirs) of the deceased had waived their right of Qisas (retaliation). However, the only unresolved issue pertained to the determination of Diyat for the minor legal heirs of the victim.The court observed that the trial court had failed to make a specific order either accepting or rejecting the compromise submitted by the parties. Instead, it had directed the payment of Diyat without specifying the amount and the mode of payment. The trial court's order seemed to be based on a misconception that the accused persons were acquitted merely upon the submission of the compromise.The court highlighted the legal requirement for the trial court to make a decision on the compromise, determine the Diyat amount, and specify the shares of the minor legal heirs. The trial court's failure to follow this procedure was noted, and it was directed to proceed with the case in accordance with the law.The judgment referred to relevant provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, including Sections 310, 323, and 331, as well as the Diyat, Arsh, and Daman Fund Rules, 2007. The court accepted the quashment petition, set aside the impugned orders, and instructed the trial court to proceed in accordance with the law. The legal principle that the ultimate result of a compromise is not an automatic acquittal of the accused was emphasized, and the court underscored the need for the trial court to assess the merits of the case before accepting or rejecting a compromise.

Summary: (a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)- -S. 4-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.53-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212 (3)-Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether appeal before Service Tribunal was not time barred; whether convicted person, who was released after payment of Diyat amount could be said or could be declared as a person acquitted honourably and in that eventuality could such person, who was released on payment of Diyat, was liable to be reinstated into service; whether payment of Diyat could absolve a person from accusation of murder; and whether respondent was an acquitted person or was a convicted person even after payment of Diyat. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 53, 299(e), 310(5) & 323-Diyat' and `Badal-i-Sulh'-Distinction-Concept of Badal-i-Sulh is totally different from the concept of Diyat inasmuch as provisions of S.310(5), P.P.C. and the Explanation attached therewith show that Badal-i-Sulh is to be "mutually agreed" between the parties as a term of Sulh between them-Diyat, under S. 53, P.P.C. is punishment and provisions of S.299(e), P.P.C. and S. 323, P.P.C. manifest that amount of Diyat is to be fixed by Court. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S. 310 (5)-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345-Compounding of offence of murder-Payment of Badal-i-Sulh-Effect-Compounding of offence of murder upon payment of Badal-i-Sulh is not a result of payment of Diyat which is form of punishment and that such compounding of offence leads to nothing but an acquittal of accused person.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S.302/34-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Appreciation of evidence-No prior meting of minds existed to form a pre-arranged plan to murder the deceased-Occurrence took place at the spur of the moment-Motive as set up by prosecution was too remote and weak and immediate cause of occurrence could not be ascertained-Each of accused was liable for his own act-Fatal injury to deceased was attributed to accused M whereas only simple injuries were attributed to accused T and S-Sentence-of accused M was rightly maintained under S.302, P.P.C. with life imprisonment and those of T and S under S.323, P.P.C. in circumstances.

Summary: Penal Code (RLV of 1860)- -S. 304, Part I, Exception 4 to 5.300-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Petitioners charged under S.302/326/323/34, P.P.C. acquitted by Trial Court-High Court re-appraised evidence and convicted them under Ss. 304, Part I & 326, P. P. C.-Leave to appeal-Case of sudden fight and prosecution having made out case against petitioners falling under Exception 4 to S.300, P. P. C., their convictions and sentences, held, was proper and not open to interference-Leave to appeal reused.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss.302, 307 & 323-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)- Petition against conviction-Day light occurrence-No delay in lodging F.I.R.-Eye-witness account given by injured witnesses found consistent and supported by medical evidence-Possibility of false implication ruled out-Since evidence of parties had been properly appraised, Supreme Court declined to interfere and refused leave to appeal. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss.302, 307 & 323-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Reduction of sentences by High Court, unchallenged-Accused charged under Ss. 302 & 307, 323, P.P.C.-Sudden affair and occurrence taking place at the spur of the moment-No evidence brought on record to show that it was a pre-planned occurrence-Hot words and abuses exchanged by parties before occurrence-Extreme penalty not being called for, High Court held justified in reducing sentence and after having considered role of co-accused, came to correct conclusion-Leave to appeal refused. Criminal Petition No.244 of 1982 Criminal Petition No.254 of 1982

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss.302. & 323 read with Ss.148 & 149-Leave to appeal-Appraisal of evidence-Contentions (i) that despite its finding that eye-witnesses were present at spot and their evidence, being confidence inspiring could not be ruled out, High Court proceeded to acquit four accused of the charge under 5.302/149, P.P.C.; (ii) that there was no justification in setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by Trial Court under 5.302/148/149, P.P.C. against the said accused and holding them guilty only under S.323, P.P.C.; and (iii) that while maintaining conviction of two other accused under 5.302, P.P.C. there was no justification in altering their sentences of death to imprisonment for life on ground that immediate cause of commission of offence was not proved needed examination-Leave to appeal granted to complainant for reappraisal of evidence for safe dispensation of criminal justice.

Summary: (a) Criminal trial-Witness-Evidence, appreciation of-Prosecution witnesses closely related to deceased but having no motive to falsely involve accused Such witnesses, held, could not be termed as interested witnesses, in circumstances.-.[Witness]. (b) Criminal trial- - Witness-Evidence, appreciation of-Injuries or person of accused not explained by prosecution witnesses but their testimony otherwise reliable-Evidence of such witnesses, held, could not be thrown out on this score only.-[Witness-Evidence). (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- S. 302 read with S. 300-Murder, offence of-Accused aiming a blow with vahola at head of deceased with sufficient force resulting in his death-Accused, held, bad no intention but to kill and if case not taken out of purview of S. 300, P. P. C. offence established would be one of murder as punishable under S. 302, P. P. C. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- - S. 323-Sentence, reduction in-Accused only liable under S. 323, -P. P. C. for causing hurt to a witness-Accused a boy about 14/ 15 years old and remaining in Jail for sometime-Accused sentenced to fine only, in circumstances.-[Sentence]. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- - S. 302/34 read with S. 300-Murder-Sudden fight-Sentence, of-Occurrence a sudden affair, resulting in death of one on ants' side-Parties exchanging abuses before falling out and inflicting injuries to each other-Lesser penalty provided under S. 302, P. P. C., held, would meet ends of justice, in circumstances.-[Sentence]. Tassadiq Hussain Jillani, A. A: G. (Punjab) for the State. Dates of hearing: 25th and 26th May, 1981.