Muhammad Sharif accused appellant during the pendency of this appeal had died. The appeal to his extend stood abated.
2. As many as six accused alongwith present appellant were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Burewala District Vehari in case FIR No, 30 dated 30.1.90, for offences under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149 PPC registered at Police Station City Burewala who vide judgment dated 27.2.1993 proceeded to acquit Muhammad Shahid Farooq, Sana Ullah and Maqsood Ahmed alias Basharat.
Raja Ijaz principal accused absconded, whereas rest of the six accused were arrested by the police and after investigation of the case they were challaned. Out of the six accused three were acquitted whereas, the present appellant were convicted and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment each under Section 307 PPC and were also liable to pay fine of Rs, 10,000/- each in default of payment of fine each of them was further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. It was further directed that half of the fine, if recovered shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased Abdul Sittar each of them was also held to be entitled to get the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. Aggrieved of the impugned judgment conviction and sentence awarded to them the appellant preferred an appeal to this Court as far back as during the year 1993. During the pendency of this appeal the Appellant No, 2 died and his appeal stood abated.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellants were arrested on 15.2.1990 and since the appeal could not be heard, therefore, this Court vide order dated 11.4.1995 suspended the sentence when they had already undergone rigorous imprisonment for five years and two months and that since then they are on bail and there is no complaint whatsoever of misuse of this concession and that the appellants are not responsible for delay in hearing of this appeal and prays that at this belated stage no useful purpose would be served if they are re-sent behind the bars, while concluding the submissions, submits that the principal accused Raja Ijaz was acquitted by the learned trial Court, rather, not even arrested as a result of compromise with the legal heirs, initially ad-interim pre-arrest bail allowed to him, was confirmed vide order dated 12.10.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Burewala, and that in view of compromise he stands finally acquittal.
4. Conversely the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned Deputy Prosecutor General opposed this appeal and submit, while admitting the factum of compromise having been effected between the legal heirs of the deceased and petitioner Ijaz Ahmed, that the same has no bearing upon decision of this appeal.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely gone through the record. It is in admitted fact that the appeal is pending in this Court since 1993 and delay is not attributable to the appellants. It is also an admitted fact that the principal accused Ijaz Ahmed was not even arrested initially he absconded and thereafter, his pre-arrest bail was confirmed vide order dated 12.10.1996 on account of compromise with the legal heirs of the deceased. It is also an admitted fact that the appellants have undergone rigorous imprisonment for five years and two months and sentence was suspended by this Court as far back as on 11.4.1995.
6. In view of afore-stated facts I am of the considered view that the sentence already undergone by the appellants would meet the ends of justice. I, therefore, while maintaining the conviction, reduce the sentence to that already undergone. This appeal, therefore, is partially allowed.