Crl. Appeal No. S –108 of 2022



  Before Mr.Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho.



Appellants:                    Talib Hussain and (03) others.

Though Mr.Ali Murad Malano Advocate.



Respondent:                  Complainant Mst.Sahiba

                                      Through Mr.Muhammad Arif Kolachi Advocate


The State

Through Mr.Khalil Ahmed Maitlo

Deputy Prosecutor General.



Date of hearing 13th February, 2023.

Date of Judgment ___  March, 2023.








ABDUL MOBEEN LAKHO, J:- The appellants Talib Hussain and (03) others have filed this appeal challenging the Judgment dated 18.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood), Sukkur in Sessions Case No.566/2022 (Criminal Complaint No. Nil/2022) titled Mst.Sahiba Mahar v.Talib Hussain and others, whereby the leaned trial Court after full dressed trial found the appellants to be guilty of the offence u/s 3&4 Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 r/w 149 PPC convicted them and sentenced  to R.I for 08 years  and also to pay fine of Rs.100,000/- each, in case of failure to pay the fine, they shall also undergo S.I. for two years more. The appellants were also directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.400,000/-(Rs100,000/- each) in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C and in case of default, they will undergo S.I for 06 months more. The appellants were further convicted u/s 148, PPC and sentenced with fine of Rs.20000/- each  and in case of failure, they shall suffer S.I for 02 months more. Beside, the possession of the land in question was also ordered to be restored to the complainant.


2.      Learned counsel for the appellants and complainant have contended that the parties have entered into compromise and they have filed a joint application for compromise between the appellants and complainant through their respective Advocates duly supported by the affidavits of the appellants and complainant. It is further contended that the possession of the land in question has already been handed over to complainant, therefore he has no objection to the acquittal of the appellants. The counsel for complainant has further contended that the complainant  has been given compensation amount of Rs.400,000/- imposed by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment and he has no objection even for the reduction of sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants.


3.      Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has supported the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and complainant that under Section 423(1)(b) and (d), Cr.P.C, this Court (appellate Court) is competent  to reduce the sentence.


4.      I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants, complainant and learned Deputy Prosecutor General appearing for the State.


5.      In the case of Taj Muhammad and another v Muhammad Anwar (2009 YLR 559 (Karachi)), it was held as under:-


“At this stage,  a statement/undertaking dated 21.10.2008 has been filed duly signed  by the complainant and the learned counsel as well as by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 so also their learned counsel stating therein that complainant could not press conviction, if appellants undertake not to interfere/dispossess the complainant from the subject plots in future. Appellant undertake that they will not interfere/dispossess complainant from subject property in future. Since accused are remorseful on their act and want to reform themselves and complainant do not oppose if they may be acquitted/or sentence be reduced and not pressing for conviction, then legal position is that sentence and conviction awarded to the appellants by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Karachi West in a Direct complaint No.4/2005 filed by the respondent No.1 against appellants and others under sections 3-4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 can be reduced by taking a lenient view a sunder section 345, CR.P.C compromise is being accepted and sentence reduced to already undergone.”


6.      Accordingly, instant appeal is disposed of  in terms of compromise/statement made at the bar that the complainant does not press for conviction as he has already been handed over the possession of the land in question and he has also been given compensation amount and further the undertaking of the appellants that they would not interfere with the possession and title of the complainant on the property in dispute. Therefore, in exercise of the powers under Section 423(i)(b), Cr.P.C, the impugned judgment dated 18.11.2022 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV/(Hudood), Sukkur in Sessions Case No.566/2022 is modified and the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period of their confinement already undergone and the order of compensation is also recalled as the same has been paid to the complainant. The appellants are in Jail and they shall be released forthwith if not required in any other criminal case.

          The Crl. Appeal No. S – 108 of 2022 is disposed of.