Abdul Hameed Dogar, J.--Through this petition, petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order dated 7.4.2005 whereby Writ Petition No, 5420 of 2005 filed by them was dismissed and request for compounding the offence was declined.
2. Briefly, stated the facts giving rise to the filing of instant petition are that FIR No, 683/99 dated 7.11.1999 was registered with P.S. Chak Jhumra District Faisalabad under Sections 380/411/440/506 PPC read with Section 10 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance') and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') against petitioners. On completion of investigation, petitioners were sent up to face trial before Judge Special Court, Anti-Terrorism, Faisalabad. On the completion of trial, petitioners were found guilty and were convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 18.12.1999 by the trial Court as under:--
(i) U/S. 411 PPC, 3 years RI and fine of Rs, 20,000/-., in default 9 months R.I.;
(ii) U/S. 449 pPC, life Imprisonment;
(iii) U/S. 506 PPC, 2 years R.I. and Fine Rs, 25,000/-, in default 6 months R.I.;
(iv) U/S. 10(4) of the Ordinance, Death; and
(v) U/S. 7 of the Act, Death and fine of Rs, 50,000/-, in default by years R.I.
3. They preferred Criminal Appeal No, 1369/99 challenging their convictions and sentences before learned Lahore High Court, Lahore. Trial Court also sent Murder Reference No, 534-T for conformation of death sentence or otherwise. The appeal was dismissed whereas Murder Reference was answered in affirmative and sentence of death was maintained. They still feeling dissatisfied, filed Criminal! Petition Nos, 705-L, 720-L, 744-L and 749-L of 2001 before this Court which too were dismissed and leave to appeal was refused vide judgments dated 7.3.2003 and 18.3.2003. Where after their review petitions were also dismissed. Ultimately, petitioners approached President of Pakistan who also rejected their mercy petition.
4. Consequently, death warrants of the petitioners were issued after fulfilling all legal requirements and Superintendent Jail, Faisalabad sent letter dated 15.2.2005 to the family members of the petitioners to have last meeting with them as they were being executed on 28.2.2005,. It was thereafter, due to intervention of elders and Catholic Bishop Joseph Courts, compromise was affected and victim Mst. Saima and complainant Bashir Masih pardoned them. It was on 25.2.2005 petitioners moved compromise application before trial Court and statements of complainant Bashir Masih and victim Mst. Saima were recorded wherein they stated that they have forgiven the petitioners in the name of Almighty Allah but learned trial Court refused to accept compromise vide order dated 29.3.2005. Against this Order petitioners filed Writ Petition No, 5420/2005 before Lahore High Court, Lahore which was dismissed vide impugned order.
5. We have heard Mr. G.N. Gohar, learned ASC for the petitioners at length and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners mainly contended that victim Mst. Saima as well as complainant Bashir Masih have forgiven the petitioners in the name of Almighty Allah and have entered compromise with them and have compounded the offence, as such, they may be acquitted. He further contended that this Court in the case of Maulana Nawab-ul-Hassan and 7 others vs. The State (2003 SCM R 658) has accepted the composition of offence though the petitioners therein were convicted under Section 7 of the Act.
7. Admittedly, the conviction and sentence of all the four petitioners have been maintained upto this Court. Even mercy petition has been rejected by the. President of Pakistan. It is worth mentioned that all the offences under which the petitioners have been convicted are non- compoundable offences. The offence in the instant case was registered on 7.11.1999 on which date, offence under Section 10(4) of the Ordinance was included in the Schedule of the Offences falling within the ambit of the Act, thus was rightly tried by Anti-Terrorism Court and sentenced to death under the above mentioned provision of law and Section 7 of the Act. Offence under Section 10(4) of the Ordinance and Section 7 of the Act are offences against society, it was because of that object legislature made these offences non-compoundable. The offence u/S. 10(4) of the Ordinance called as "Gan Rape" being a henious offence was knowingly included in the schedule of the Act. It being an offence against society creates terror and fear of insecurity in the society and public at large, disturbing normal tempo of life and tranquility of society. Culminate fall of the occurrence is to be seen which, if examined in the light of fact of the present case, the provision of Section 7 of the Act are fully attracted.
8. Only offences affecting human body mentioned in Chapter XVI o Pakistan Penal Code were made compoundable by substituting Sections 299 to 338-H vide Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1990 and legal heirs of deceased and victim had been allowed to compound the offence with the permission of the concerned Court. The case of Maulana Nawab- ul-Hassan referred (supra) is of no help to the case of petitioners as the accuse who were convicted and sentenced under Section 7 of the Act by the trial Court were acquitted in appeal by the learned High Court. It was only Section 302(b) and Section 324 PPC which being compoundable were compounded and compromise application was allowed.
9. For what has been discussed above, we do not find any justification to interfere in the impugned order which in our opinion is well in accordance with law. Accordingly, petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.