' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, C.J.--- Through this appeal, appellants have assailed judgment dated 19-3-2008, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Islamabad, whereby he convicted the appellant No,1 under section 460 read with section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced him Death, along with compensation Rs,1,00,000 to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C., in default whereof the convict was ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months, whereas, the remaining appellants were convicted under section 460, P.P.C. And were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, in case F.I.R. No,370 dated 4-11-2003 registered under sections 302/148/149/324/460, P.P.C. At Police Station Industrial Area Islamabad.
2. Criminal Miscellaneous No,447-M of 2008 was submitted by the appellant Shabbir Hussain seeking permission for compromise, which was referred to learned Sessions Judge, Islamabad, who after recording the statements of legal heirs, submitted his report that the compromise is genuine and it is in the interest of justice that the same may be allowed. As per report, Mst. Samina and Rubina, are minor daughters of deceased Talib Hussain and are in custody of their mother Mst.
Khurshid Bibi. She being Wali of the minors also compounded the offences on their behalf and waived their right of Qisas, receiving Diyat amount Rs,59;376 each, in the shape of Defence Saving Certificates, issued in the names of both the minor daughters.
3. We think that compromise between the parties was entered into without any coercion or pressure and with free consent of the legal heirs of the deceased, it is in the interest of justice that the compromise voluntarily effected, be accepted.
4. Appellants were also convicted under section 460, P.P.C. Which is not compoundable. Learned counsel does not contest the appeal in regard to conviction and sentence passed under section 460, P.P.C, on merits and pray for reduction of sentence.
5. Learned Standing Counsel has argued that if the conviction is modified, nothing much to say as reduction of sentence lays within the jurisdiction of Court.
6. Heard, record perused.
7. Reliance by learned counsel to case Imdad Hussain v. State PLD 2008 Lah. 450 in which it was held that compromise between the parties in a criminal case, the minor offence even if not compoundable merges into the compoundable major offence, has not persuaded us. However, in view of learned counsel not contesting the appeal on merits and Shabbir Hussain appellant No,1 remained behind the bars since 7-2-2005 and other having been declared by the police innocent during investigation and remained behinds the bars for some period, we are inclined that interest of justice will be fully met if the sentence is reduced to already undergone by them.
8. In view of above discussion, the appeal is allowed to the extent of conviction recorded under section 302/34, P.P.0 by setting aside the judgment of learned trial Court. As far as conviction under section 460, P.P.C. Is concerned, the same is maintained, however, sentence is reduced to already undergone by appellants. The appellant No,1 Shabbir Hussain be released from the jail immediately, if not required in any other case. Remaining appellants are on bail. They are set free.
Their sureties are discharged from their respective bail bonds.