Petitioner is the father of Muhammad Iqbal. This Muhammad Iqbal alongwith his brother Mumtaz Ahmad, Shahbaz-petitioner and Muhammad Nasir were accused of Commission of offences under Section 302 PPC vide a case FIR No, 411 dated 7.12.2000 at P.S. Sadar Duniyapur. The said Muhammad Iqbal and Mumtaz Ahmad, sons of the petitioner, were tried under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, while the petitioner and Muhammad Nasir were separately tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran. Vide judgement dated 30.3.2004, the learned Sessions Judge/Judge, Juvenile Court, Lodhran, while acquitting Mumtaz-co-accused, convicted and sentenced Iqbal as under:--
(I) For offence under Sections 308 PPC read with Section 306 PPC to Diyat of Rs, 2,90,372/- to be paid either from his property or by his parents;
(II) Under second proviso to undergo R.I. for fourteen years as Tazeer; and
(III) To pay Rs, 50,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased as contemplated by Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. is default whereof to further undergo R.I. for six months.
In the second trial, Shahbaz-petitioner was acquitted, while his co-accused Nasir was convicted and sentenced under Section 302(b)/34 PPC to imprisonment for life and to pay compensation amounting to Rs, 50,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased as enjoined by Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. or in default in payment thereof to further suffer R.I. for six months.
2. Feeling aggrieved by their aforementioned convictions and sentences, Iqbal filed Criminal Appeal No, 225/04, while Nasir preferred Criminal Appeal No, 224/04.
3. Criminal Appeal No, 225/04 come up before this Court on 24.6.2004, when the learned counsel for the said appellant stated that the appeal stands abated due to the death of the appellant in jail. It was accordingly disposed of. However, the appeal filed by Nasir is still pending.
4. The legal heirs of the deceased person filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran, stating that the said Muhammad Iqbal has died and the appeal has abated and that the amount of Diyat be directed to be paid by the parents of the said convict as ordered by the learned trial Court. This application has, been allowed by the learned Sessions Judge on 23.12.2004 and he has issued execution process against the movable and immovable property of the said convict, including the petitioner.
5.Sardar Mahboob, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner cannot be made to pay the amount of Diyat, as the liability, which is criminal in nature, cannot be shifted to his client, moreso when the minor-convict has not left any property. He has also tried to argue that the criminal appeal was disposed of wrongly, as it could not have abated, so far as the amounts payable under the judgment of the trial Court are concerned. The learned AAG and learned counsel for Nazir Ahmed, stated to be one of the legal heirs of the deceased, have drawn my attention to Section 331 PPC to urge that the learned trial Court was competent to direct payment of Diyat by any person determined by it and the parents, who are the only Walis of the deceased convict, are liable to pay the same.
6. I have given some thought to the respective contention of the learned counsel and the learned law officer. To may mind, the learned trial Court was competent to direct payment of Diyat by a minor convict or nay person determined; and competently determined that the parents of the minor-convict shall pay the Diyat. The learned Sessions Judge has only ordered execution of the said directive of the learned trial Court.
7. However, I find that for all practical purposes, the Diyat, which I was imposed in lieu of Qisas, constitutes a sentence against the petitioner father and his wife, the mother, of the said deceased minor-convict. However the legal implications and the ultimate effect cannot be determined is these limited proceedings. The petitioner may adopt and resort to such remedy as is available to him under the law and as he may be advised. With these observations, the criminal revision is dismissed.