Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 297, 320 & 427---Causing death by rash and negligent driving and causing damage to property---Appreciation of evidence---Necessary witness---Evidence non-recording of---Four persons lost their lives in an accident between a truck and a trailer---Accused was convicted for driving rash and negligently which resulted into death of four persons---Validity--- Prosecution was duty bound to prove rash and negligent driving by leading independent and cogent evidence---Prosecution failed to record statements of cleaners of trailer and truck--- Evidence of no eye-witness of the occurrence was recorded to prove rash and negligent driving---Trailer and truck were not examined by Motor Vehicle Examiner to ascertain their speed and brakes to fix liability on driver of trailer or truck---Merely saying that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving was not enough to substantiate allegations levelled against accused---High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and acquitted him of the charge---Appeal was allowed in circumstances. Yasir Arafat v. The State and another 2012 MLD 611 and Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 rel.

Summary: Background:In Cr. Appeal No. 14/2017, the appellant Mujahid Hussain challenged his conviction and sentence under sections 377, 324, and 297 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The conviction was handed down by the Additional Sessions Judge/Juvenile Court Gilgit on 24-03-2017. Mujahid Hussain was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000 under section 377 PPC, five years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25,000 under section 324 PPC, and one year of imprisonment under section 297 PPC.----Issues:Whether the impugned judgment/conviction order passed by the trial court is contrary to law and facts.Whether the compromise between the complainant and the appellant/convict can be considered for reduction of the sentence.Whether the appellant/convict should be acquitted based on the compromise.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court modified the sentence of the appellant while maintaining the conviction. The key points of the judgment are:Prosecution Case: The appellant abducted a minor, committed sodomy, and attempted to murder the victim. The victim was found injured and the appellant fled the scene. The police arrested the appellant and a case was registered.Trial and Conviction: The trial court convicted the appellant based on the evidence presented, including testimonies and medical reports. The appellant was sentenced under sections 377, 324, and 297 PPC.Compromise: The complainant, on intervention of a jirga, entered into a compromise with the appellant and recorded a statement in court stating no objection to the appellant?s acquittal. The court had already released the appellant on bail based on this compromise.Sentence Modification: While section 377 PPC is not compoundable, the court considered the compromise for reducing the sentence. The appellant had already served more than half of his sentence, including remissions. The court found it just to reduce the sentence from ten years to three years of rigorous imprisonment already served. The fine was reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 20,000, to be deposited within one week, failing which the appellant would undergo two months of rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine under section 324 PPC was set aside.With these modifications, the appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment was maintained with reduced sentences.---Citations/Precedents:Section 377, 324, and 297 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC)Bail order dated 03-02-2018 based on the compromise between the complainant and the appellant