IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Original Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa 
Mr. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan 
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah 
 
 
 
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
(Regarding the issue as to whether compounding of an offence 
under section 345, Cr.P.C. amounts to acquittal of the accused 
person or not) 
 
 
 
In attendance: 
Syed 
Nayyab 
Hussain 
Gardezi, 
Assistant 
Attorney-General for Pakistan  
 
Mr. 
Tariq 
Mehmood 
Jahangiri, 
Advocate-
General, Islamabad 
 
Mr. Qasim Ali Chauhan, Additional Advocate-
General, Punjab 
 
Mr. Shehryar Qazi, Additional Advocate-General, 
Sindh 
 
Mr. Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, Additional Advocate-
General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa  
 
Mr. Ayaz Khan Swati, Additional Advocate-
General, Balochistan 
 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
27.06.2018 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.: One 
Waheed 
Ahmad 
had 
allegedly murdered a person named Tariq Hussain on 05.06.2007 
in a village in the area of Police Station Mangla Cantonment, 
District Jhelum and for committing the said offence he was booked 
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
 
2
in case FIR No. 68 registered at the said Police Station on the same 
day for an offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 
1860 (PPC). After a regular trial the said Waheed Ahmad was 
convicted by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhelum on 
19.02.2009 for an offence under section 302(b), PPC and was 
sentenced to death as Ta’zir and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to 
the heirs of the deceased by way of compensation under section 
544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.) or in 
default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six 
months. The said Waheed Ahmad challenged his conviction and 
sentence before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, 
Rawalpindi through Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2009 which was 
heard by a learned Division Bench of the said Court along with 
Murder Reference No. 20/RWP of 2009 seeking confirmation of the 
sentence of death and vide judgment dated 22.05.2012 the appeal 
was dismissed, the conviction and sentence were upheld and the 
sentence of death was confirmed. The said Waheed Ahmad then 
filed Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 216 of 2012 before 
this Court wherein leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 
06.07.2012 in order to reappraise the evidence in the interest of 
safe administration of criminal justice. As a result of grant of leave 
to appeal Waheed Ahmad preferred Criminal Appeal No. 328 of 
2012 before this Court and during the pendency of that appeal 
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 185 of 2017 was filed 
seeking acquittal of the convict-appellant on the basis of a 
compromise with the heirs of Tariq Hussain deceased and the 
matter of compromise was referred by this Court to the learned 
District & Sessions Judge, Jhelum for verification. The report 
dated 27.02.2017 submitted by the learned District & Sessions 
Judge, Jhelum in that regard confirmed the fact that a genuine, 
voluntary and complete compromise between the parties had been 
affected, the heirs of Tariq Hussain deceased had forgiven the 
convict-appellant, had waived their right of Qisas and had not 
claimed any Diyat in that respect. After going through the said 
report a 3-member Bench of this Court comprising of our learned 
brothers Amir Hani Muslim, Qazi Faez Isa and Sardar Tariq 
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
 
3
Masood, JJJ. unanimously accepted Criminal Miscellaneous 
Application No. 185 of 2017 on 21.03.2017 and allowed the 
compromise between the parties but their lordships differed on 
how the main appeal was to be disposed of upon acceptance of the 
compromise. Writing for the majority Sardar Tariq Masood, J. 
disposed of the appeal in the following terms and Amir Hani 
Muslim, J. agreed with his lordship:     
 
“In this view of the matter, Criminal Miscellaneous Application 
No. 185 of 2017 filed under Section 345 Cr.P.C. is accepted and 
the compromise arrived at between the parties is allowed. As 
according to sub-section (6) of Section 345 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1898, the composition of an offence shall 
have the effect of an acquittal, hence Criminal Appeal No. 328 of 
2012 is allowed, the sentence of Waheed Ahmad (appellant) 
recorded and upheld by the courts below is set aside and he is 
acquitted of the charges on the basis of the compromise. He shall 
be released from jail forthwith if not required to be detained in 
connection with any other case.” 
 
Qazi Faez Isa, J., however, wrote a separate note on that occasion 
and the said note read as follows: 
 
“Whilst I agree with my learned brother that the application 
under section 345(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the 
Code”) be accepted, I most respectfully cannot bring myself to 
agree that the convict/appellant be “acquitted of the charges on 
the basis of the compromise”. Subsection (6) of section 345 of the 
Code does not envisage an acquittal, as it provides: 
 
“(6) 
The composition of an offence under this 
section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the 
accused 
with 
whom 
the 
offence 
has 
been 
compounded.” 
 
2. 
The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions 
Judge, Jhelum, under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 
(“PPC”) for the murder of Tariq Hussain, and was sentenced to 
death. The Trial Court sent the Murder Reference to the Lahore 
High Court for confirmation under section 374 of the Code whilst 
the appellant/convict preferred an appeal under section 410 of 
the Code. The High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant, 
confirmed the Murder Reference and the sentence of death 
awarded to the appellant/convict. The appellant then preferred a 
criminal petition for leave to appeal before this Court, which 
granted leave, “to reappraise the evidence available on record in 
the interest of safe administration of criminal justice”. However, 
during the pendency of this appeal a compromise was effected by 
the appellant/convict with the legal heirs of the deceased. 
 
3. 
Section 345 of the Code enables compounding of offences 
and sets out the methodology thereof. It mentions the offences 
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
 
4
punishable under the PPC which can be compounded either 
before or after an accused is convicted. The table contained in 
subsection (1) of section 345 specifies, “persons by whom offences 
may be compounded”. But, subsection (5) of section 345 
stipulates that once an accused has been convicted, “no 
composition for the offence shall be allowed without the leave of 
the Court before which the appeal is to be heard”. Undoubtedly, 
the prescribed offences can be compounded, but the composition 
of such offences has to be in terms of subsection (6) of section 
345 which stipulates that, “the composition … shall have the 
effect of an acquittal”. 
 
4. 
In my opinion “the effect of an acquittal” is different from 
an acquittal. The guilt of an accused, that is ascertaining whether 
the accused has committed the offence for which he is charged, is 
determined by the Trial Court. Once the guilt of the accused has 
been determined the judgment is delivered by the Court. The 
judgment has two components, conviction, which means he is 
guilty, and the sentence, which is the punishment awarded to 
him. If the legal heirs of the deceased compound the offence it 
does not mean that the appellant/convict was not guilty of the 
murder for which he was convicted, which would be the case if, 
as a consequence of allowing the composition, he is “acquitted”. 
Subsection (6) of section 345 also avoids creating such a fiction 
as it provides that the “composition of an offence … shall have the 
effect of an acquittal”, which means that the punishment 
(sentence) part of the judgment is brought to an end; neither this 
subsection states, nor it could, that the convict is “acquitted of 
the charges”. The verdict of guilt (the conviction part of the 
judgment) that the Trial Court had recorded could only have been 
undone by the High Court, failing which by this Court; it cannot 
be undone by the legal heirs of the murdered person. 
 
5. 
The law permits the legal heirs of a murdered person to 
compound the offence with the convict, with or without receiving 
badal-i-sulh/diyat (sections 310 and 323 PPC). When the legal 
heirs compounded the offence they elected not to seek retribution 
or the enforcement of the sentence. The very premise of 
compounding the offence is the acknowledgment of guilt by the 
accused who is then forgiven by the legal heirs; the affidavits filed 
by the legal heirs clearly also state this. 
 
6. 
Section 338-F of the PPC stipulates that in the 
interpretation and application of Chapter XVI (“Offences Affecting 
the Human Body”) “and in respect of matters ancillary or akin 
thereto, the Court shall be guided by the Injunctions of Islam as 
laid down in the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah”. The aforesaid 
interpretation of subsection (6) of section 345 is in conformity 
with a number of verses of the Holy Qur’an: surah Al-Baqarah (2) 
verses 178-9, surah Al-Maidah (5) verse 45, surah Al-Isra (17) 
verse 33 and surah Ash-Shura (42) verse 40. In these verses our 
Merciful Creator suggests that forgiveness and reconciliation is 
preferable to revenge or retaliation. A person can only be forgiven 
if he is guilty. The cited verses neither state nor imply that the 
finding of guilt is effaced. 
 
7. 
Therefore, whilst I agree with the conclusion reached by 
my learned brother that the application for compounding the 
offences be accepted, I cannot agree that as a consequence the 
appellant/convict should be “acquitted of the charges” and thus 
completely exonerated. However, since section 345(6) of the Code 
has not been examined and interpreted in the aforesaid manner 
therefore the Hon’ble Chief Justice is requested to take notice of 
this matter under Article 184(3) of the Constitution as it is a 
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
 
5
question of public importance involving the enforcement of 
Fundamental Rights. The office is directed to place the matter 
before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Pakistan for appropriate 
orders.” 
 
The matter was thereafter put up before the Hon’ble Chief Justice 
of Pakistan and his lordship was pleased to pass the following 
order: 
 
“Let the issue raised in the order by my learned brother Justice 
Qazi Faez Isa be taken up under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution 
and the matter be fixed before the bench headed by my brother 
Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa.” 
 
It is in the above mentioned background that the matter has been 
fixed for hearing before the present Bench today.  
 
2. 
We have heard the learned Assistant Attorney-General for 
Pakistan, the learned Advocate-General for the Islamabad Capital 
Territory, the learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, the 
learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh, the learned Additional 
Advocate-General, 
Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa 
and 
the 
learned 
Additional Advocate-General, Balochistan at some length. They 
have 
all 
submitted 
in 
complete 
unison 
that 
in 
Islamic 
jurisprudence and in the system of administration of criminal 
justice in vogue in this country a composition of a compoundable 
offence leads to and results in acquittal of the accused person or 
convict concerned. They have also submitted that any confusion 
created by the words “effect of an acquittal” used in section 345(6), 
Cr.P.C. now stands removed by the word “acquit” used in the 
subsequently introduced first proviso to section 338-E(1), PPC and 
its interpretation by this Court in the case of Chairman Agricultural 
Development Bank of Pakistan and another v. Mumtaz Khan (PLD 
2010 SC 695).  
 
3. 
The issue before us is as to whether a successful and 
complete compounding of an offence leads to acquittal of the 
accused person or convict from the allegation or charge or it is only 
to have an effect of acquittal which may be something short of or 
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
 
6
other than acquittal. After hearing the learned Law Officers and 
going through the relevant legal provisions and the precedent cases 
available on the subject we have explored and attended to the 
issue at hand from diverse angles and in the following paragraphs 
we embark upon an effort to find an answer to this question and to 
resolve the controversy.  
 
4. 
Section 345, Cr.P.C. deals with compounding of offences and 
it provides as follows: 
 
345. 
Compounding offences. (1) The 
offences 
punishable 
under the sections of the Pakistan Penal Code specified in the 
first two columns of the table next following may be compounded 
by the persons mentioned in the third column of that table:- 
 
Offence 
Sections 
of 
Penal 
Code 
applicable 
Persons 
by 
whom offence 
may 
be 
compounded 
------- 
------- 
------- 
------- 
------- 
------- 
 
 
(2) 
Subject to sub-section (7), the offences punishable under 
the sections of the Pakistan Penal Code specified in the first two 
columns of the table next following may, with the permission of 
the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is 
pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third 
column of that table:- 
 
Offence 
Sections 
of 
Penal 
Code 
applicable 
Persons 
by 
whom offence 
may 
be 
compounded 
------- 
------- 
------- 
------- 
------- 
------- 
 
 
(2-A) 
Where an offence under Chapter XVI of the Pakistan Penal 
Code, 1860 (Act XLV of 1860), has been committed in the name 
or on the pretext of karo kari, siyah kari or similar other customs 
or practices, such offence may be waived or compounded subject 
to such conditions as the Court may deem fit to impose with the 
consent of the parties having regard to the facts and 
circumstances of the case. 
 
 
(3) 
Where any offence is compoundable under this section, 
the abetment of such offence or any attempt to commit such 
offence (when such attempt is itself an offence) may be 
compounded in like manner. 
 
 
(4) 
When the person who would otherwise be competent to 
compound an offence under this section is under the age of 
eighteen years or is an idiot or a lunatic, any person competent to 
contract on his behalf may with the permission of the Court 
compound such offence. 
 
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
 
7
 
(5) 
When the accused has been convicted and an appeal is 
pending, no composition for the offence shall be allowed without 
the leave of the Court before which the appeal is to be heard. 
 
 
(5-A) 
A High Court acting in the exercise of its power of revision 
under section 439 and a Court of Session so acting under section 
439-A, may allow any person to compound any offence which he 
is competent to compound under this section.  
 
 
(6) 
The composition of an offence under this section shall 
have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the 
offence has been compounded.  
 
 
(7)  
No offence shall be compounded except as provided by 
this section and section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 
(Act XLV of 1860). 
 
A plain reading of this section shows that compounding of a 
compoundable offence may be possible before the trial, during the 
trial or even during the pendency of an appeal or a revision petition 
and that in some cases compounding of an offence does not 
require permission of the court whereas in some other cases 
permission or leave of the relevant court is required for 
composition. However, the question before us is not as to how a 
compounding is to take place with or without permission or leave 
of a court but the controversy before us is about the consequence 
after a valid compounding has taken place and for resolving the 
said controversy it is important to appreciate what compounding of 
an offence actually means. 
 
5. 
Before we dig deep into the controversy at hand it may be 
advantageous to mention that there are shorter answers available 
to the questions involved in this matter and they may be recorded 
straightaway. Chapter XVI of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 deals 
with offences affecting human body including murder and causing 
of hurt and all such offences are compoundable by virtue of the 
provisions of section 309, PPC (Waiver-Afw), section 310, PPC 
(Compounding-Sulh) and section 345, Cr.P.C. Section 338-E(1), 
PPC and the first proviso to the same (falling in Chapter XVI of the 
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860) provide as follows: 
 
338-E. Waiver or compounding of offences. (1) 
Subject to the 
provisions of this Chapter and section 345 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), all offences under this Chapter may 
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
 
8
be waived or compounded and the provisions of sections 309 and 
310 shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the waiver or compounding 
of such offences: 
 
Provided that, where an offence has been waived or 
compounded, the Court may, in its discretion having regard to 
the facts and circumstances of the case, acquit or award ta’zir to 
the offender according to the nature of the offence. ------- 
 
(bold letters have been supplied for emphasis) 
 
These provisions show, and show quite clearly, that all the offences 
affecting human body including murder and causing of hurt falling 
in Chapter XVI of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 are capable of 
being waived or compounded and that in case of waiver or 
compounding of such offences the court concerned, after granting 
the discretionary permission or leave to compound where 
necessary, is to acquit the person accused or convicted if it is a 
case of Ta’zir but in a case of Qisas it has a discretion either to 
acquit or to pass a sentence of Ta’zir against the accused person or 
convict in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 
It has already been clarified by this Court in the case of Zahid 
Rehman v. The State (PLD 2015 SC 77) that the discretion to 
punish by way of Ta’zir under section 311, PPC and other similar 
provisions after waiver or compounding of the right of Qisas is 
relevant only to cases of Qisas and not to cases of Ta’zir. It is true 
that section 345(6), Cr.P.C. does not speak of “acquittal” as a 
consequence of compounding of an offence and it only speaks of 
the “effect of an acquittal” but it is now clear through the 
subsequently introduced section 338-E, PPC that a compounding 
of a compoundable offence in a case of Ta’zir is to lead to acquittal 
of the accused person or convict. When the law itself, as it stands 
today, speaks of acquittal as a consequence of compounding of an 
offence then any ambiguity in that regard created by the previous 
state of the law may not confound us anymore.  
 
6. 
Another short answer to the core question involved in this 
matter is available in the judgment handed down by this Court in 
the case of Chairman Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan 
and another v. Mumtaz Khan (PLD 2010 SC 695) involving the 
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
 
9
same issue which is under our consideration in the present matter. 
In that case the respondent was an employee of a Bank and on 
account of his involvement in and conviction for an offence of 
murder he was removed from service but later on he was acquitted 
on the basis of a compromise with the heirs of the deceased and a 
question arose as to whether a compromise or compounding could 
validly be treated as acquittal or not for the purposes of his 
reinstatement in service of the Bank. This Court had categorically 
held in that case that compounding of an offence through a court 
in a case of Ta’zir amounted to an acquittal and speaking for the 
Court on that occasion one of us (Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.) had 
observed as follows: 
 
 
“7. 
------- After introduction of the Islamic provisions in the 
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 it has now also become possible for an 
accused person to seek and obtain his acquittal in a case of 
murder either through waiver/Afw under section 309, PPC or on 
the basis of compounding/Sulh under section 310, PPC. In the 
case of waiver/Afw an acquittal can be earned without any 
monetary payment to the heirs of the deceased but in the case of 
compounding/Sulh 
an 
acquittal 
may 
be 
obtained 
upon 
acceptance of Badal-i-Sulh by the heirs of the deceased from the 
accused person. In the present case the respondent had been 
acquitted of the charge of murder by the learned Sessions Judge, 
Lakki Marwat as a result of compounding of the offence and such 
compounding had come about on the basis of acceptance of 
Badal-i-Sulh by the heirs of the deceased from the respondent. ---
---- 
 
8. 
The provisions of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of 
section 338-E, PPC clearly contemplate acquittal of an accused 
person on the basis of compounding of an offence by invoking the 
provisions of section 310, PPC and the effect of such 
compounding has also been clarified in most explicit terms by the 
provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 345, Cr.P.C. in the 
following words: 
 
“The composition of an offence under this section 
shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused 
with whom the offence has been compounded.”     
 
9. 
The legal provisions mentioned above leave no ambiguity 
or room for doubt that compounding of an offence of murder 
upon payment of Badal-i-Sulh -------and that such compounding 
of the offence leads to nothing but an acquittal of the accused 
person. It has already been clarified by this Court in the case of 
Dr. Muhammad Islam v. Government of N-W.F.P. through Secretary 
Food, Agricultural, Live Stock and Cooperative Department, 
Peshawar (1998 SCMR 1993) as follows: 
 
“We are inclined to uphold the above view 
inasmuch as all acquittals even if these are based 
on benefit of doubt are honourable for the reason 
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
 
10
that the prosecution has not succeeded to prove 
their cases against the accused on the strength of 
evidence of unimpeachable character. It may be 
noted that there are cases in which the judgments 
are recorded on the basis of compromise between 
the parties and the accused are acquitted in 
consequence thereof. What shall be the nature of 
such acquittals? All acquittals are certainly 
honourable. There can be no acquittals, which may 
be said to be dishonourable. The law has not 
drawn any distinction between these types of 
acquittals.” 
 
The said precedent case also involved a question of reinstatement 
in service of an accused person implicated in a criminal case who 
had been acquitted by the criminal court and this Court had 
declared that an acquittal had no shades and there was no 
concept of honourable or dishonourable acquittals. It had 
specifically been noted by this Court in that case that there could 
also be cases involving acquittals on the basis of compromise 
between the parties and after raising a query regarding the status 
of such acquittals this Court had hastened to add that “All 
acquittals are certainly honourable”. -------  
 
10. 
------- Be that as it may, an ultimate acquittal in a 
criminal case exonerates the accused person completely for all 
future purposes vis-à-vis the criminal charge against him as is 
evident from the concept of autrefois acquit embodied in section 
403, Cr.P.C. and the protection guaranteed by Article 13(a) of the 
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and, 
according 
to 
our 
humble 
understanding 
of 
the 
Islamic 
jurisprudence, Afw (waiver) or Sulh (compounding) in respect of 
an offence has the effect of purging the offender of the crime. In 
this backdrop we have found it difficult as well as imprudent to 
lay it down as a general rule that compounding of an offence 
invariably amounts to admission of guilt on the part of the 
accused person -------.” 
 
(underlining has been supplied for emphasis)  
 
7. 
Delving deeper into the issue we note that the concept of 
compounding of an offence, also termed as composition of an 
offence, is an old concept recognized not only in the Islamic law 
and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 but also in the Anglo-Saxon 
jurisprudence. In his book An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law 
(revised edition 1954) Roscoe Pound had observed about the 
concept of composition of an offence as follows: 
   
“The first theory of liability was in terms of a duty to buy off the 
vengeance of him to whom an injury had been done whether by 
oneself or by something in one’s power. The idea is put strikingly 
in the Anglo-Saxon proverb, ‘Buy spear from side or bear it’, that 
is, buy off the feud or fight it out. --- As the social interest in 
peace and order – the general security in its lowest terms – comes 
to be secured more effectively by regulation and ultimate putting 
down of feud as a remedy, payment of composition becomes a 
duty rather than a privilege --- The next step is to measure the 
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
 
11
composition not in terms of the vengeance to be bought off in 
terms of the injury. A final step is to put it in terms of reparation.” 
 
In Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition) the definition of 
‘composition’ includes “A payment of money or chattels as 
satisfaction for an injury. In Anglo-Saxon and other early societies, 
a composition with the injured party was recognized as a way to 
deter acts of revenge by the injured party.” In the same dictionary 
the definition of ‘Compound’ includes “To agree for consideration 
not to prosecute (a crime)”. The meaning of the word ‘Compound’ 
in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (Ninth Edition) 
includes “settle (a debt, dispute, etc.) by concession or special 
agreement”, “condone (a liability or offence) in exchange for money 
etc.”, “forbear from prosecuting (a felony) from private motives” and 
“come to terms with a person, for forgoing a claim etc. for an 
offence”. In Pakistan the Islamic concepts of Afw and Sulh (two 
different ways of compounding an offence which is made 
compoundable by the legislature) are an important part of our 
criminal law and in cases of murder and causing of hurt sections 
309, 310 and 338-E, PPC provide for Waiver-Afw (forgiveness 
without accepting any compensation) and Compounding-Sulh 
(compounding 
on 
accepting 
badal-i-sulh/compensation) 
and 
section 
345, 
Cr.P.C. 
provides 
the 
mechanism 
for 
such 
compounding. According to Islamic jurisprudence Afw and Sulh 
are based upon forgiveness and reconciliation and in his lordship’s 
separate note dated 21.03.2017 passed in this very matter our 
learned brother Qazi Faez Isa, J. had referred to the verses of the 
Holy Qur’an [Surah Al-Baqarah (2) verses 178-9, Surah Al-Maidah 
(5) verse 45, Surah Al-Isra (17) verse 33 and Surah Ash-Shura (42) 
verse 40] wherein our Merciful Creator has suggested that 
forgiveness and reconciliation is preferable to revenge or 
retaliation. Without burdening this judgment with copious 
references in that regard it may suffice to state for the present 
purposes that the Islamic scholars around the globe agree that Afw 
(forgiveness) means to hide an act, to obliterate, remove and 
pardon it and to erase and efface it from the record as if it had 
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
 
12
never been committed and, likewise, Sulh (reconciliation) means 
that the act or offence is forgiven and forgotten as if 
it had never happened. In his A Dictionary of Islam (The Unit 
Printing Press, Lahore, 1964) Thomas Patrick Hughes had 
recorded as follows:  
 
“AFU. Lit. “erasing, cancelling.” The word is generally used in 
Muhammadan books for pardon and forgiveness. It occurs eight 
times in the Qur’an, e.g. Surah ii. 286, “Lord, make us not to 
carry what we have not strength for, but forgive us and pardon us 
and have mercy on us.” Surah iv. 46, “Verily God pardons and 
forgives.” 
 
Al-‘Afu is one of the ninety-nine special names of God. It means 
“one who erases or cancels;” “The Eraser (of sins).” See Qur’an, 
Surah iv. 51.” 
 
8. 
According to various dictionaries of English language, 
reference to which may not be necessary here, setting free from 
guilt, sin or penalty and forgiveness of an offence is also termed as 
absolution or absolving of the person concerned. As a consequence 
of Afw or Sulh resulting in obliteration and removal of the offence 
and its erasing and effacing from the record the accused person or 
convict stands absolved of what had been done by him or of what 
was attributed to him and such absolving effect of the act of 
compounding is recognized in the following treatises: 
 
English Synonymes Explained In Alphabetical Order; with Copious 
Illustrations and Examples by George Crabb, A. M. (published by 
William Clowes and Sons, London, 6th Edition, 1837): 
 
“To ABSOLVE, ACQUIT. 
 
ABSOLVE, in Latin absolvo, is compounded of ab from and solvo 
to loose, signifying to loose from that with which one is bound. 
ACQUIT, in French acquitter, is compounded of the intensive 
syllable ac or ad, and quit, quitter, in Latin quietus quite, 
signifying to make easy by the removal of a charge. 
 
These terms imply the setting free from guilt or its consequences. 
Absolving may sometimes be applied to offences against the laws 
of man, but more frequently to offences against God; acquitting 
applies solely to offences against man. The conscience is released 
by absolution; the body, goods, or reputation, are set free by an 
acquittal.  
 
 
Yet to be secret, makes not sin the less; 
 
‘Tis only hidden from the vulgar view, 
 
Maintains indeed the reverence due to princes, 
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
 
13
 
But not absolves the conscience from the crime. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DRYDEN. 
 
The fault of Mr. Savage was rather negligence than ingratitude; 
but Sir Richard Steele must likewise be acquitted of severity; for 
who is there that can patiently bear contempt from one whom he 
has relieved and supported?  
 
JOHNSON. 
 
To ABSOLVE, ACQUIT, CLEAR. 
 
ABSOLVE in this case, as distinguished from the former article, 
(v. To absolve,) is extended to all matters affecting the conscience 
generally. ACQUIT (v. To absolve, acquit) and CLEAR in the sense 
of making clear or free from, are applied to everything which may 
call for blame, or the imputation of what is not right. A person 
may be absolved from his oath, acquitted or pronounced quit of 
every charge, and cleared from every imputation. 
 
 
Compell’d by threats to take that bloody oath 
 
And the act ill, I am absolv’d by both.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WALKER. 
 
Those who are truly learned will acquit me in this point, in which 
I have been so far from offending, that I have been scrupulous 
perhaps to a fault in quoting the authors of several passages 
which I might have made my own.   
ADDISON. 
 
He set himself with very great zeal to clear the Romish church of 
idolatry.  
 
 
 
 
BURNET.” 
 
English Synonymes Explained In Alphabetical Order; with Copious 
Illustrations by George Crabb, A. M. (published by LEIPSIC, a New 
Edition, 1839): 
 
“To ABSOLVE, ACQUIT, CLEAR. 
 
ABSOLVE, in Latin absolvo, is compounded of ab from and solvo 
to loose, signifying to loose from that with which one is bound.  
 
ACQUIT, in French acquitter, is compounded of the intensive 
syllable ac or ad, and quit, quitter, in Latin quietus quite, 
signifying to make easy by the removal of a charge. 
 
These 2 words convey an important distinction between the act of 
the Creator and the creature.  
 
To absolve is the free act of an omnipotent and merciful being 
towards sinners; to acquit is the act of an earthly tribunal 
towards supposed offenders.   
 
By absolution, we are released from the bondage of sin and placed 
in a state of favour with God; by an acquittal we are released from 
the charge of guilt, and reinstated in the good estimation of our 
fellow creatures.  
 
One is absolved from an oath, acquitted of a charge, and cleared 
from actual guilt.  
 
Absolve is also sometimes used in the sense of setting free from a 
charge, as from an obligation in which sense it comes still nearer 
to the words acquit and clear; but it is thus used mostly in the 
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
 
14
grave style, and carries with it the idea of setting one altogether 
free from the consequences of a charge.”  
 
Crabb’s English Synonymes by George Crabb, A. M. (published by 
Grosset & Dunlap Publishers, New York, 1917): 
 
“ABSOLUTION. See FORGIVE. 
 
ABSOLVE, ACQUIT. Absolve, in Latin absolvo, is compounded of 
ab, from, and solvere, to loose, signifying to loose from that with 
which one is bound. Acquit, in French acquitter, is compounded of 
the intensive syllable ac or ad, and quit, quitter, from Latin 
quietus, quite, signifying to make easy by the removal of a charge.  
 
These terms imply the setting free from guilt or its consequences. 
Absolving may sometimes be applied to offences against the laws 
of man, but more frequently to offences against God; acquitting 
applies solely to offences against man. The conscience is released 
by absolution; the body, goods, or reputation are set free by an 
acquittal.  
 
See also FORGIVE.  
 
Absolve, Acquit, Clear. – Absolve in this case, as distinguished 
from the former article, is extended to all matters affecting the 
conscience generally. Acquit and clear, in the sense of making 
clear or free from, are applied to everything which may call for 
blame, or the imputation of what is not right. A person may be 
absolved from his oath, acquitted or pronounced quit of every 
charge, and cleared from every imputation.”  
 
Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language by 
William Allan Neilson, Thomas A. Knott, Paul W. Carhart 
(published by G. & C. Merriam Company Publishers, 2nd Edition, 
1957): 
 
“Ab-solve’  
 
1.  
To set free, or release, as from some obligation, debt, or 
responsibility, or from the consequences of guilt or from such ties 
as it would be guilt to violate; to pronounce free; as, to absolve a 
subject from his allegiance.  
 
2.  
To acquit; to adjudge or pronounce not guilty. 
Halifax was absolved by a majority of fourteen.  
Macaulay.  
 
3.  
To free from a penalty; to pardon; remit (a sin); - said of 
the sin or guilt.  
In his name I absolve your perjury.   
 
Gibbon. 
 
4.  
To finish; accomplish.  
The work begun, how soon absolved.  
 
Milton.  
 
5.  
To resolve or explain, as a difficulty.   
Obs.  
 
Syn. – Exonerate, discharge, forgive.  
 
 
See EXCULPATE.” 
     
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
 
15
The material mentioned above shows that obliteration and removal 
of the offence and its erasing and effacing from the record as a 
result of compounding has the effect of absolving the accused 
person or convict of the act, acquittal from the charge and 
clearance from the actual guilt and the legislature in 1898, when 
section 345, Cr.P.C. was introduced, was aware of the fact that in 
English language as well as in legal literature the word ‘absolve’ 
was synonymous with the words ‘acquit’ and ‘clear’. The legislature 
was cognizant of the legal position at that time that compounding 
of 
an 
offence 
ipso 
facto 
amounted 
to 
absolution 
which 
automatically had the effect of acquittal from the charge and 
clearance from guilt and, therefore, there was hardly any occasion 
for the legislature to provide in section 345, Cr.P.C. that upon a 
successful composition of an offence the accused person or convict 
would be acquitted by the court concerned. It was already 
understood quite well that compounding of an offence would have 
an automatic “effect of an acquittal” and that was exactly what was 
legislated through section 345(6), Cr.P.C. and no need was felt to 
expressly provide for an order of acquittal to be passed by a court 
on the basis of compounding.  
 
9. 
A successful and complete composition of a compoundable 
offence having the “effect of an acquittal” in terms of section 
345(6), Cr.P.C. came under discussion in the cases of Kumarasami 
Chetty v. Kuppusami Chetty and others (AIR 1919 Madras 879(2)), 
Ram Richpal v. Mata Din and another (AIR 1925 Lahore 159), 
Jhangtoo Barai and another v. Emperor (AIR 1930 Allahabad 409), 
Dharichhan Singh and others v. Emperor (AIR 1939 Patna 141), Mt. 
Rambai w/o Bahadursingh v. Mt. Chandra Kumari Devi (AIR 1940 
Nagpur 181), Godfrey Meeus v. Simon Dular (AIR (37) 1950 Nagpur 
91) and Prithvi Bhagat and another v. Birju Sada (AIR 1962 Patna 
316) and the ratio decidendi of the said cases is summed up as 
follows: 
 
(i) 
A compounding can take place during the trial 
or during the pendency of an appeal or a revision 
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
 
16
petition and it can take place even before the case has 
reached the trial court for trial. 
 
(ii) 
A 
complete 
compounding 
fulfilling 
the 
requirements of sub-sections (1) or (2) of section 345, 
Cr.P.C., as the case may be, cannot be withdrawn or 
resiled from by any party at any later stage because it 
has already created the effect of an acquittal of the 
accused person. 
 
(iii) 
Composition of a compoundable offence not 
requiring permission of the court deprives the court of 
its jurisdiction to try the case or ousts the jurisdiction 
of the court to try the offence and the court has no 
other option but to acquit the accused person. 
 
(iv) 
Composition of a compoundable offence not 
requiring permission of the court and grant of 
permission or leave to compound by the relevant court 
in cases where such permission or leave is required 
result in immediate acquittal of the accused person. 
 
(v) 
In some of the above mentioned cases acquittal 
of the accused person was ordered on the basis of 
successful and complete composition rather than 
observing that the composition would only have the 
effect of an acquittal.   
 
All the above mentioned precedent cases had been taken notice of 
by this Court in the case of Tariq Mehmood v. Naseer Ahmed, etc. 
(PLD 2016 SC 347) but the issue relating to compounding of an 
offence involved in that case was different from the one under 
discussion here. 
 
10. 
In the context of the issue at hand it is of critical importance 
to notice that the heading of section 345, Cr.P.C. is ‘Compounding 
of offences’ and the said heading itself says it all that we are trying 
to find out. A compounding is in respect of the offence regarding 
which a person has been accused or convicted and it has no direct 
relevance to his guilt or punishment or even to his conviction or 
sentence and this is more so because a compounding can take 
place even before any finding of guilt or conviction is recorded. 
Through compounding the offence itself is compounded and 
resultantly the accused person or convict ipso facto stands 
absolved of the allegation leveled or the charge framed against him 
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
 
17
regarding commission of that offence and that is why there is no 
need for recording his acquittal in that connection because 
through the act of compounding the offence itself has disappeared 
or vanished. As already mentioned above, in English language the 
words “absolve”, “acquit” and “clear” are synonymous words and 
can be used interchangeably in the context of criminal law and this 
was so acknowledged in the treatises referred to hereinbefore. 
 
11. 
We find that the controversy over “acquittal” and “effect of an 
acquittal” in the context of section 345(6), Cr.P.C. and drawing a 
distinction in this regard between guilt and punishment may be 
quite unnecessary because for all practical purposes an acquittal 
or any other dispensation having the effect of an acquittal may not 
make any difference to the parties to the case or the system of 
administration of justice in the larger context. An acquittal of an 
accused person or convict from an allegation or charge of 
committing an offence entails that he cannot again be subjected to 
investigation in connection with the same allegation, he cannot be 
arrested, prosecuted or punished again for committing the same 
offence and the principle of autrefois acquit enshrined in Article 
13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan and also in section 403, 
Cr.P.C. becomes applicable to him. The acquittal of an accused 
person or convict also leads to his release from custody if he is in 
confinement and discharge of his bail bonds and sureties if he is 
on bail.  Such consequences of an acquittal of an accused person 
or convict can also quite conveniently be called or termed as effects 
of his acquittal. In this backdrop the only rationale we can 
decipher as to why the legislature spoke of “effect of an acquittal” 
in the context of compounding of an offence and did not use the 
word “acquittal” in section 345(6), Cr.P.C. is that it could not 
employ or utilize the word acquittal in that context because an 
acquittal can be ordered in connection with an existing allegation 
or charge but where the allegation or the charge itself has 
disappeared, evaporated or vanished or it stands erased or effaced 
on account of composition of the offence itself there is hardly any 
occasion for recording an acquittal. In case of such a 
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
 
18
metamorphosis brought about by a composition of the offence the 
best that the legislature could do was to extend all the benefits and 
effects of an acquittal to the concerned person and this is exactly 
what had been done by it through the provisions of section 345(6), 
Cr.P.C.  
 
12. 
The issue regarding compounding being relevant only to 
punishment and not to guilt of the accused person or convict may 
also be viewed from the angle of conviction and sentence and we 
note in that context that in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 
the legislature was quite conscious of the distinction between a 
conviction and a sentence or, in other words, between guilt and 
punishment. Section 412, Cr.P.C. speaks of conviction and 
sentence separately and provides for a situation where relief may 
be extended only in the matter of sentence and not in the matter of 
conviction. Sections 169 and 249, Cr.P.C. speak only of an 
accused person’s release pending an investigation or trial when he 
is in custody without making any mention of his guilt. In the same 
statute the legislature, if it was so minded, could have provided in 
section 345, Cr.P.C. that as a result of compounding of an offence 
the person concerned would be released from custody or that he 
would not be liable to any punishment but his guilt in the matter 
would stand undisturbed but the legislature did not say that. In 
that section the legislature did not even provide for release of the 
accused person or convict from custody or his acquittal as a 
consequence of compounding and such silence of the legislature in 
those regards was a silence which said it all when it mentioned 
that all the effects of acquittal would automatically flow from the 
compounding. Such effects of acquittal could not be ordered to 
flow from the compounding unless the compounding itself 
amounted to, without saying so, nothing but acquittal by operation 
of the law. It may be appreciated in this context that an acquittal 
or the effects of it in criminal law are necessarily relevant to guilt of 
a person and criminal jurisprudence and law do not envisage or 
contemplate removal of punishment while impliedly maintaining a 
person’s guilt. Such an approach may be debated in theological or 
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
 
19
sociological contexts and that too only in an academic sense but 
for importing the same into criminal jurisprudence and law one 
would have to rewrite the same which exercise we are neither 
ready nor equipped or qualified to undertake.  
 
13. 
The stance sometimes taken in favour of keeping the 
relevant person’s guilt intact while doing away with his 
punishment on the basis of compounding of an offence is premised 
upon considerations other than legal. According to this stance 
such a person should be kept away from public offices and civil 
services, etc. because he is an adjudged criminal who was once 
found guilty of an offence but he got away with his punishment 
because of compounding of the relevant offence. In his separate 
note recorded in the case of Mureed Sultan and others v. The State 
through P. G. Punjab and another (2018 SCMR 756) our learned 
brother Qazi Faez Isa, J. had raised similar concerns in this regard 
as had been voiced by his lordship in his lordship’s separate note 
dated 21.03.2017 recorded in the present matter. In the said case 
of Mureed Sultan and others our learned brother had observed as 
under: 
 
 “7. 
Some may question the significance of the entire 
discussion, and enquire, if a court has accepted the application 
under section 345 of the Code and the convict has been released 
from jail what difference would his acquittal make. There are 
grave consequences. A man who has committed murder but is 
“acquitted” merely because the legal heirs of the murdered person 
compound the offence, would enable the murderer, for instance, 
to honestly declare on a job application that he is not and has 
never been a convict; he could thus be eligible to apply for 
government employment, be employed as a teacher, be inducted 
into the Armed Forces, enter the judicial service or even be 
appointed as a judge of the superior courts. There is then the 
religious aspect to the discussion. The person who has committed 
the sin of murder if he professes his guilt or is convicted in this 
world, and serves out his sentence or is released as a 
consequence of the legal heirs forgiving him, may be spared the 
agony of punishment in the Hereafter.” 
 
While appreciating the intensity and sincerity of the sentiment 
expressed and also the gravity of the concerns voiced by our 
learned brother in respect of different ramifications of the issue not 
only in the context of public life in this world but also regarding 
the Hereafter we have, with utmost respect, not been able to bring 
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
 
20
ourselves to agree with his lordship so as to interpret the existing 
law in the light of some hypothetical possibilities in this world and 
retribution or redemption in the Hereafter. It is not for us to 
consider as to how such a person would be dealt with by Almighty 
Allah in the next world or on the Day of Judgment as our job is 
only to interpret and apply the law of the land as it exists. Our 
short response to such stance is that it is based upon nothing but 
good intentions and pious wishes, it stems from mere possibilities 
conjured up by a noble and public-spirited mind, it involves public 
policy and it is for the legislature to amend the relevant laws, etc. 
to keep such a person out of the public life, if it so desires and 
decides. Without introducing appropriate amendments in the 
criminal law in vogue in the country there is little scope for 
canvasing such collateral or incidental punishments for a person 
and as long as the law of the land stands as it is all the fruits and 
effects of acquittal have to be extended to such person on the basis 
of a complete and lawful compounding of the offence with him. Be 
that as it may, this Court has already rejected a similar argument 
based upon this very stance in the above mentioned case of 
Chairman Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and another v. 
Mumtaz Khan (PLD 2010 SC 695) with the following observations:     
 
“9. 
------- It has already been clarified by this Court in the 
case of Dr. Muhammad Islam v. Government of N-W.F.P. through 
Secretary 
Food, 
Agricultural, 
Live 
Stock 
and 
Cooperative 
Department, Peshawar (1998 SCMR 1993) as follows: 
 
“We are inclined to uphold the above view 
inasmuch as all acquittals even if these are based 
on benefit of doubt are honourable for the reason 
that the prosecution has not succeeded to prove 
their cases against the accused on the strength of 
evidence of unimpeachable character. It may be 
noted that there are cases in which the judgments 
are recorded on the basis of compromise between 
the parties and the accused are acquitted in 
consequence thereof. What shall be the nature of 
such acquittals? All acquittals are certainly 
honourable. There can be no acquittals, which may 
be said to be dishonourable. The law has not 
drawn any distinction between these types of 
acquittals.” 
 
The said precedent case also involved a question of reinstatement 
in service of an accused person implicated in a criminal case who 
had been acquitted by the criminal court and this Court had 
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
 
21
declared that an acquittal had no shades and there was no 
concept of honourable or dishonourable acquittals. It had 
specifically been noted by this Court in that case that there could 
also be cases involving acquittals on the basis of compromise 
between the parties and after raising a query regarding the status 
of such acquittals this Court had hastened to add that “All 
acquittals are certainly honourable”. If that be the case then the 
respondent in the present case could not be stigmatized or 
penalized on account of his acquittal on the basis of a 
compromise. -------.  
 
10. 
As regards the submission made by the learned counsel 
for the appellants based upon the issue of propriety of reinstating 
in service a person who, by virtue of compounding of an offence of 
murder, is a self-condemned murderer we may observe that we 
have pondered over the said issue from diverse angles and have 
not felt persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the 
appellants. Experience shows that it is not always that a 
compromise is entered into by an accused person on the basis of 
admission of guilt by him and in many cases of false implication 
or spreading the net wide by the complainant party accused 
persons compound the offence only to get rid of the case and to 
save themselves from the hassle or trouble of getting themselves 
acquitted from courts of law after arduous, expensive and long 
legal battles. Even in the present case the respondent and his 
brother were accused of launching a joint assault upon the 
deceased upon the bidding and command of their father and 
before the learned trial court the respondent’s brother had 
maintained in unequivocal terms that he alone had murdered the 
deceased and the respondent and their father had falsely been 
implicated in this case. Be that as it may, an ultimate acquittal in 
a criminal case exonerates the accused person completely for all 
future purposes vis-à-vis the criminal charge against him as is 
evident from the concept of autrefois acquit embodied in section 
403, Cr.P.C. and the protection guaranteed by Article 13(a) of the 
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and, 
according 
to 
our 
humble 
understanding 
of 
the 
Islamic 
jurisprudence, Afw (waiver) or Sulh (compounding) in respect of 
an offence has the effect of purging the offender of the crime. In 
this backdrop we have found it difficult as well as imprudent to 
lay it down as a general rule that compounding of an offence 
invariably amounts to admission of guilt on the part of the 
accused person or that an acquittal earned through such 
compounding may have ramifications qua all spheres of activity of 
the acquitted person’s life, including his service or employment, 
beyond the criminal case against him. We may reiterate that in 
the case of Dr. Muhammad Islam (supra) this Court had 
categorically 
observed 
that 
“All 
acquittals 
are 
certainly 
honourable. There can be no acquittals, which may be said to be 
dishonourable. The law has not drawn any distinction between 
these types of acquittals”. The sway of those observations made 
by this Court would surely also encompass an acquittal obtained 
on the basis of compounding of the offence. It is admitted at all 
hands that no allegation had been leveled against the respondent 
in the present case regarding any illegality, irregularity or 
impropriety committed by him in relation to his service and his 
acquittal in the case of murder had removed the only blemish 
cast upon him. His conviction in the case of murder was the only 
ground on which he had been removed from service and the said 
ground had subsequently disappeared through his acquittal, 
making him reemerge as a fit and proper person entitled to 
continue with his service.” 
 
(underlining has been supplied for emphasis)  
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
 
22
 
14. 
Ordinarily an acquittal recorded by a trial court in a criminal 
case means that the charge framed against an accused person in 
respect of committing an offence has not been proved and he is, 
thus, judicially exonerated from the allegation. In our country in 
some special circumstances provided for in sections 249-A and 
265-K, Cr.P.C. an acquittal can also be recorded by a trial court 
even before framing of a formal charge where the allegation leveled 
is found to be groundless or there is no probability of the accused 
person’s conviction even if a trial is conducted. After an accused 
person is convicted and sentenced by a trial court he can be 
acquitted by a higher Court through an appeal or a revision 
petition and upon such acquittal his conviction and sentence are 
set aside. Compounding or composition of an offence is, however, a 
distinct dispensation of its own kind and it has to be understood in 
its own context without mixing or confusing it with concepts of 
conviction, sentence and acquittal. The references made above to 
Roscoe Pound’s book, Black’s Law Dictionary and Concise Oxford 
Dictionary show that composition of an offence serves a purpose 
different from that ordinarily served by the judicial process, i.e. 
retribution through law. Instead of retribution a composition 
brings about reconciliation between the parties, it buys off the 
vengeance of him to whom an injury had been done by buying 
spear from side rather than bearing it, through it vengeance of the 
victim is bought off through reparation, it achieves satisfaction for 
an injury rather than punishment for the injury and it deters acts 
of revenge by the injured party. Likewise, to compound means to 
agree not to prosecute a crime, to settle a dispute by concession or 
special agreement, to condone an offence in exchange for money or 
any other consideration, to forbear from prosecuting a crime and to 
come to terms with a person for forgoing a claim, etc. for an 
offence. We understand that the true meanings and objects of the 
special dispensation of compounding or composition of offences are 
to be appreciated and recognized in this context rather than in the 
narrow context of conviction, sentence and acquittal and this is 
probably why section 345(6), Cr.P.C. speaks of a composition to 
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
 
23
have the effect of an acquittal and does not speak of setting aside 
of conviction and sentence and the resultant acquittal from the 
charge. 
 
15. 
Any controversy over the issue that a person’s guilt already 
determined judicially cannot be undone by the victim or his heirs 
on their own has appeared to us to be misconceived as the same 
overlooks the provisions of sub-sections (5) and (5-A) of section 
345, Cr.P.C. according to which 
    
 
(5) 
When the accused has been convicted and an appeal is 
pending, no composition for the offence shall be allowed 
without the leave of the Court before which the appeal is to be 
heard. 
 
 
(5-A) 
A High Court acting in the exercise of its power of revision 
under section 439 and a Court of Session so acting under section 
439-A, may allow any person to compound any offence which 
he is competent to compound under this section. 
 
(bold letters have been supplied for emphasis) 
 
 
It is, thus, obvious that in a case where a court has already 
convicted a person of a compoundable offence and has held him 
guilty there no compounding of the offence by the victim or his 
heirs with the convict can take effect or can be said to be 
successful or complete unless the relevant appellate or revisional 
court grants leave to compound or allows the proposed 
composition. The law, therefore, clearly envisages not only 
involvement but also decision of the relevant court in finalization of 
the proposed composition of offence in such a case and it cannot 
be said that guilt of the convicted person is undone by the victim 
or his heirs on their own. It goes without saying that the matter of 
granting or refusing leave to compound and allowing or disallowing 
the same lies in the discretion of the relevant court and before 
taking a decision in that regard the court concerned has to apply 
its judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case in their 
totality and also to consider desirability or otherwise of granting 
permission in that respect. This aspect of the matter had been 
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
 
24
considered by this Court in the case of Naseem Akhtar and another 
v. The State (PLD 2010 SC 938) and it was observed as under:  
 
“5.  
In the above context, the relevant parts of the section 
345(5) and (7), Cr.P.C. are reproduced as below. 
 
S.345(5) 
 
"When the accused has been convicted and an appeal is 
pending, no composition for the offence shall be allowed 
without the leave of the Court before which the appeal is 
to be heard." 
 
S.345(7) 
 
"No offence shall be compounded except as provided by 
this section". 
 
Before proceeding to analyze the noted provision, it may be 
pertinent to mention here that the expressions "an appeal is 
pending" and "the Court" appearing ibid (section 345(5) for all 
intents and purposes of the law shall also mean the leave petition 
pending before this Court. Be that as it may, because of the use 
of word `No', in both the subsections the command of law is in 
the negative form, thus, the composition of an offence is 
prohibited lacking (without) the leave of the Court. As per the 
Black's Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition 801), the noted expression is 
defined to mean "Permission obtained from a Court to take some 
action which, without such permission, would not be allowable." 
Thus, the object requiring leave from the Court as per the clear 
intention of the legislature is neither meaningless nor purposeless 
and it cannot be construed that while considering the 
compromise plea, even of a compromise which is lawfully entered, 
by free consent of the legal heirs, the Court, should act in a 
mechanical manner and allow the same as a matter of course or 
routine; should sit as a silent spectator or to conduct as a post 
office simpliciter and affix a judicial stamp upon it. Rather it is 
the duty and the prerogative of the Court to determine the fitness 
of the case for the endorsement and sanction of the compromise 
and in appropriate cases, where the compromiser and offender is 
directly or indirectly beneficiary of the crime; the offence is 
committed or is caused thereof, for an obvious object of grabbing 
the property of the deceased by the compromiser, through his off 
spring, who may ultimately benefits himself (the offender) as well, 
the Court may refuse to give an effect to such a deal, especially 
coupled with the scenario when the offence is gruesome, brutal, 
cruel, appalling, odious, gross and repulsive which causes terror 
and sensation in the society.” 
 
(underlining has been supplied for emphasis) 
 
 
There is no dearth of authority in our country where compounding 
of offences had been refused by the courts in view of some peculiar 
features of those cases which fact clearly demonstrates that the 
ultimate decision whether a compounding of an offence (in serious 
cases requiring permission or leave of the court as opposed to less 
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
 
25
serious cases involving petty offences not requiring permission of 
the court for the purpose) is allowed or not lies with the courts and 
not with the victims or their heirs. The issues highlighted by our 
learned brother Qazi Faez Isa, J. and mentioned above may be 
relevant to the concerned court at the time of granting or refusing 
permission or leave in respect of the proposed composition but 
after such permission or leave has been granted by the court and 
the proposed composition is successfully completed the accused 
person or convict is to be acquitted and such acquittal is to entail 
all the fruits and effects of a lawful acquittal. This Court has 
already declared, as referred to above, that an acquittal has no 
shades and there are no honourable or dishonourable acquittals.  
 
16. 
It may be appreciated in this context that the law of the land 
permits compounding of some offences and through the act of 
compounding the victim or his heirs absolve the accused person or 
convict of the guilt and if such composition is allowed or permitted 
by the relevant court, where required, then because of a successful 
and complete composition the offence itself vanishes leaving no 
issue about guilt or otherwise alive. An offence is generally against 
the State and the society at large but the legislature has made 
some of the offences compoundable which is a recognition that 
wishes of the victims or their heirs have an important role in 
prosecution of such offences and adjudication regarding guilt and 
punishment therein, subject of course to permission or leave of the 
court for composition where required. In some of the precedent 
cases referred to above it had categorically been held that once a 
composition is complete in respect of a compoundable offence not 
requiring permission of the court the concerned court is divested of 
its jurisdiction to try the case or the offence. The references made 
to Black’s Law Dictionary and Concise Oxford Dictionary also 
amply demonstrate that to compound means to agree not to 
prosecute a crime, to settle a dispute by concession or special 
agreement, to condone an offence in exchange for money or any 
other consideration, to forbear from prosecuting a crime and to 
come to terms with a person for forgoing a claim, etc. for an 
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
 
26
offence. 
The 
decision 
not 
to 
prosecute 
a 
person 
for 
a 
compoundable offence allegedly committed by him or the decision 
to absolve him of his guilt even where it has been judicially 
determined are decisions which have been given by the legislature 
in the hands of the victims or their heirs by making the offence 
compoundable and in cases where permission or leave of a court is 
required for composition of such offence this spirit of the law is to 
be kept in view and the requisite permission or leave may 
ordinarily not be withheld or refused unless the facts and 
circumstances of the case persuade the relevant court otherwise. 
Carrying the spirit of composition (forgiveness and reconciliation) 
forward we may add that grant of the requisite permission or leave 
by the court in such cases should be a rule and its withholding or 
refusal an exception. Composition of a compoundable offence is a 
concession extended by the legislature and also by the religion of 
Islam to the victims and their heirs and the same may not lightly 
be taken away or whittled down by the courts.   
 
17. 
As a result of the discussion made above we declare the legal 
position as follows: 
 
(i) 
As provided by the provisions of section 338-E(1), PPC and 
the first proviso to the same and as already declared by this Court 
in the case of Chairman Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan 
and another v. Mumtaz Khan (PLD 2010 SC 695) as a result of a 
successful and complete compounding of a compoundable offence 
in a case of Ta’zir under section 345, Cr.P.C., with permission or 
leave of the relevant court where required, an accused person or 
convict is to be acquitted by the relevant court which acquittal 
shall erase, efface, obliterate and wash away his alleged or already 
adjudged guilt in the matter apart from leading to setting aside of 
his sentence or punishment, if any. 
 
(ii) 
In the context of the provisions of section 345(6), Cr.P.C. the 
effect of an acquittal recorded by a court on the basis of a 
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017 
 
27
successful and complete compounding of a compoundable offence 
shall include all the benefits and fruits of a lawful acquittal.  
 
 
 
 
(Asif Saeed Khan Khosa) 
Judge 
 
 
(Ijaz ul Ahsan) 
Judge 
 
 
(Syed Mansoor Ali Shah) 
Judge 
  
 
Islamabad 
June 27, 2018 
Approved for reporting. 
Arif