A partial compromise between the complainant and accused may have a mitigating effect on the sentencing in a case of Ta’zir.
The accused was convicted under P.P.C. section 302(b) and sentenced to death. The Lahore High Court upheld this conviction and sentence.
The Supreme Court found that this was not an attack launched straightaway on the deceased. The pair were engaged in an altercation that escalated into the killing caused by the accused. Furthermore, there were contradictions between the record of the case and what was presented at trial. According to the record, an eyewitness had informed the complainant of the incident. During the trial, the same individual claimed that he had not seen the incident take place.
Additionally, the complainant and his minor children had forgiven the appellant and entered into a compromise with him. The compromise remained incomplete so could not be given effect by the court. However, the Supreme Court referred to the principle that in a case of Ta’zir a partial compromise “may not have any bearing upon conviction of an accused person…but it may have, in the circumstances of a given case, some relevance to the question of sentence”.1 Based on this, the court maintained the accused’s conviction but commuted his sentence to life imprisonment under Cr.P.C. section 382-B.
