10/11/21, 8:42 PM 2012 S C M R 437

 
2012 S C M R 437
 
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
 
Present: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., and
Khilji Arif Hussain, J
 
SUO MOTU ACTION REGARDING NON-PAYMENT OF THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT TO THE POOR ELECTRICIAN, WHO HAS
BEEN PRESSURIZED BY THE
POLITICAL FIGURE OF PML(N) AS WELL
AS BY THE POLICE TO ENTER INTO A COMPROMISE
WITH THE
ACCUSED MURDERERS OF HIS 12 YEARS OLD SON: In the matter of
 
Suo Motu Case No. 19 of 2011, decided on 13th
December, 2011.
 
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
 
----S. 156---Conducting of
investigation---Principle---Investigating agency to conduct
case properly with
full determination and commitment instead of unnecessarily
allowing concession
to persons, if they are involved in commission of offence.
 
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
 
----Ss.310 & 323---Diyat
amount---Determination---Mode of payment---Dispute
regarding Diyat amount arose
between the parties after compromise of offence---
Validity---Amount of Diyat
would be determined according to prevailing rate of Diyat
at the time when
compromise was effected because it was the accused who actually
requested
victim party to favour him and if, as a result, such favour was extended then
payment of compensation should be determined and made at the rate prevailing at
the
time when compromise was effected and executed by the court---Word
"property",
under explanation to S.310, P.P.C., included both movable
and immovable property,
therefore, compensation equal to Nisab prevailing at
the time when compromise was
effected after determining the value of moveable
and immovable property could also
be paid---Supreme Court directed the Trial Court
to dispose of the matter
expeditiously---Matter was disposed of accordingly.
Abdul Ghafoor v. State 1992 SCMR 1218; Ali Sher v.
State 1992 PCr.LJ 1583; Safdar
Ali v. State PLD 1991 SC 202; Niaz v. State 2009
PCr.LJ 1479 and Ali Dost v. State
2006 PCr.LJ 80 ref.
Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq, Attorney-General for Pakistan,
Muhammad Hanif Khatana,
Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, Jawad Hassan,
Additional A.-G., Punjab, Aftab
Cheema, RPO Faisalabad, Bilal Siddiqui Kamyana,
CPO Faislabad, Ashiq Ali, DSP,
Mansha, SI/IO and Shahid Ali Complainant in
Attendance.
Date of hearing: 13th December, 2011.
 
ORDER
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---The learned
Attorney-General for
Pakistan as well as the learned Additional
Advocates-General, Punjab, have addressed

pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2012S791 1/4
10/11/21, 8:42 PM 2012 S C M R 437

their arguments on the questions

framed by this Court.
 
2. Mr.
Bilal Siddique Kamyana, CPO Faisalabad, has submitted a report, according to
which investigation is being conducted against the accused persons namely Rana
Imran and others, who are allegedly involved in the case F.I.R. No. 1015, dated 5-9-
2011, under sections 302, 148
and 149, P.P.C., Police Station Gulberg, Faisalabad,
registered on the
complaint of Shahid Ali, an electrician by profession, whose son Bilal
aged
about 12 years was allegedly murdered, when he along with the deceased and his
nephew were engaged for electrification on the marriage function of Adnan
Aslam.
 
3. In
respect of the allegation of the complainant that he was pressurized to enter
into a
compromise with the accused persons in lieu whereof he was initially
paid Rs.100,000;
later on Rs.150,000, whereas an amount of Rs.400,000 was not
given to him against
the total settlement of Rs.650,000 but it was paid after
taking notice by this Court. The
bail of Rana Imran already granted to him in
the said murder case in pursuance
whereof he was allowed to be released on
personal surety bond was cancelled, as
against him (Rana Imran) and another,
the complainant alleged that he was pressurized
to enter into the compromise.
 
4. It
appears that a case under section 214, P.P.C. was also registered against four
persons namely Ghulam Sarwar, Zafar Iqbal, Waheed Ahmed and Khawaja Islam.
Statedly, on 6-12-2011, Ghulam Sarwar and Zafar Iqbal have been arrested,
whereas
the remaining accused persons namely Khawaja Islam and Waheed Ahmed
have
obtained bail from the High Court on 12-12-2011. When we have inquired
from the
learned Additional Advocate-General as to why the remaining two
persons have not
been arrested, he stated that steps are being taken to do the
needful. We have noticed
that as far as Ghulam Sarwar and Zafar Iqbal are concerned, after their arrest, under
section 214, P.P.C.
they were entitled to be released on bail, which is bailable and
non-
compoundable offence. We prima facie are of the opinion that in view of the
facts and
circumstances, it seems to be a case of coercion, harassment and
compulsion because
after making the payment of Rs.250,000 a cheque amounting to
Rs.400,000 was given
to the complainant from the account of one Muhammad Ahmed
for the purpose of
entering into compromise and meanwhile the matter came
before this Court, therefore,
the remaining payment of Rs.400,000 was made to
the complainant.
 
5. Be
that as it may, it is for the investigating agency to conduct the case properly
with
full determination and commitment instead of unnecessarily allowing
concession to the
persons, if they are involved in the commission of offence.
However, as far as Ghulam
Sarwar and Zafar Iqbal are concerned, if they furnish
surety bonds in the sum of
Rs.10,000 each they should be released on bail
forthwith.
 
6. Now
turning towards the proposition of amount of DIYAT, it is to be noted that
under section 323 of P.P.C., the object and purpose of recovery of DIYAT amount
is
that the victim should be compensated according to the rate which is
prevailing at the
time when the compromise is effected. The learned Attorney-General
for Pakistan as
well as the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, both
have agreed that the
date of compromise could be relevant for the purpose of
determining the amount of
compensation and not the date, when the offence was
committed. In this behalf,

pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2012S791 2/4
10/11/21, 8:42 PM 2012 S C M R 437

reference is made to Abdul Ghafoor v. State (1992

SCMR 1218), Ali Sher v. State
(1992 PCr.LJ 1583), Safdar Ali v. State (PLD 1991
Supreme Court 202), Niaz v. State
(2009 PCr.LJ 1479). However, there is a
judgment of Federal Shariat Court reported as
Ali Dost v. State (2006 PCr.LJ
80) wherein fixation of amount of DIYAT and payment
of amount of DIYAT in
instalments was allowed, but we are of the view that while
delivering the
judgment by the Federal Shariat Court, the judgments noted
hereinabove, were
not considered. The minimum rate of the compensation of DIYAT
amount is to be
fixed by the Court, according to the notification, issued by the Federal
Government, on every financial year, therefore, we are not inclined to agree
with the
opinion expressed in the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court.
However, following
the law laid down by this Court, referred to hereinabove, we
declare that as far as the
amount of DIYAT is concerned, the same shall be
determined according to the
prevailing rate of DIYAT at the time when the
compromise is effected, because it is the
accused who actually requests the
victim party to favour him and if, as a result such
favour is extended then
according to the law, the payment of compensation should be
determined and made
at the rate prevailing at the time when the compromise is
effected and executed
by the Court.
 
7. Now
turning to the other question regarding moveable and immovable properties. In
this behalf, it is to be noted that according to explanation to section 310,
P.P.C. the
word property includes both the moveable and immoveable property,
therefore,
compensation equal to NISAB prevailing at the time when the
compromise is effected
after determining the value of the moveable and
immoveable property can also be paid.
 
8. It is
informed by the office that against the Judicial Officer, who had released the
accused namely Rana Imran on his personal surety in a very casual manner, about
whom the matter was referred to the learned Chief Justice, Lahore High Court,
Lahore,
disciplinary proceedings have already commenced.
 
9. Thus,
for the foregoing reasons, the matter stands disposed of with direction to the
Court before whom the case is pending to dispose of the same expeditiously, as
early
as possible, but not later than a period of three months.
 
M.H./S-2/SC Order
accordingly.

pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2012S791 3/4
10/11/21, 8:42 PM 2012 S C M R 437

pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2012S791 4/4