KARACHI, April 2: A bench of the Supreme Court has set aside a Sindh High Court order in which it had been held that after entering into a compromise with legal heirs of the deceased, the convict must admit his guilt unambiguously before the court for seeking acquittal in terms of section 345 (6) of CrPC.

The Supreme Court bench of the Karachi Registry comprised Justice Rana Bhagwandas, Justice Syed Deedar Husain Shah and Justice Hamid Ali Mirza.

The apex court gave the order in the petition of Mohammed Iqbal who had sought leave to appeal against the High Court order.

The petitioner, represented by Khawaja Naveed Ahmed and Ms Wajahat Naz, advocates, had been awarded life imprisonment by the trial court for killing his wife.

The facts relate to a family feud in which the applicant’s mother had an arguments with her daughter-in-law (wife of the petitioner) on December 10, 1999. It was alleged that the petitioner sprinkled kerosene on his wife and she was torched and suffered sever burns, and she died later of burns.

Under threat of her husband, she had initially stated to police that she caught fire while lighting a stove. But when her parents took her to hospital where her second statment was taken following which police registered a case against the petitioner under section 302 of PPC.

Charge was frame against him in a STA court, but he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The trial court had awarded him life term. He preferred appeal in the SHC.

Thereafter both the parties filed an application under section 345 (2) of CrPC for compromise in the case. A division bench of the SHC dismissed both the applications.

The leave to appeal was preferred on the ground that the SHC division bench had erred in holding that :”The offence may be compoundable by the legal heirs with the person who has committed the offence and not with the one who is only accused of commission of such offence. The legal heirs of the deceased can only forgive a person, for this purpose, who killed the deceased.”

The short question involved in the petition before the apex court was whether the accused who entered into a compromise with the legal heirs of the deceased was required by law to plead guilty to the charge before the court while seeking permission for compounding the offence of premeditated murder.

The Supreme Court in its order observed that the judges of the High Court appeared to suffer from misconception of law that after finding of guilt by the competent court of law while entering into a compromise with legal heirs of the deceased, the convict must admit his guilt in unambiguous terms before the court for seeking acquittal in terms of section 345 (6) of CrPC.

“We do not think that the view taken by the High Court is correct. On this ground alone the impugned order is liable to be struck down and the same cannot be sustained. We order accordingly,” the order said.

The apex court, nevertheless, held that there was another aspect of the case, namely the report of the trial court reflecting that Shams-un-Nisa, mother of the deceased, who knew only the Pashto language, did not admit the contents of the compromise application, though explained by an interpreter.

The compromise application, apparently, was thus not complete and voluntary in nature.

After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and Additional Advocate-General for the state, the Supreme Court converted the petition into appeal and the impugned order was set aside with direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh application before the trial court for composition of the offence.

The trial court should ascertain the genuineness and voluntary character of the compromise by inquiring from legal heirs of the deceased and submit report to the High Court, which should be decided on its own merits, without being influenced by the earlier opinion, the order said.