' SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.---Zafar Iqbal alias Kala son of Allah Yar, caste Balouch, resident of Chak No,143/JB, Tehsil Bhowana, District Chiniot, appellant through this appeal has challenged his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Chiniot, vide judgment dated 10-2-2011 in case F.I.R. No 266 dated 30-4-2008, offence under sections 302, 337-L(2), 396, 397, 412 and 460, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Langrana; whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302, P.P.C., and sentenced to imprisonment for life as Ta'zir with direction to pay Rs,2,00,000 as compensation in terms of section 544-A, Cr.P.C. And in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo six months' R.I. The appellant was also convicted under section 396, P.P.C., and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment with fine of Rs,1,00,000 and in case of default in payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. For six months. Vide the same judgment the appellant was further convicted under section 460, P.P.C., and sentenced to ten years' R.I.
' Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended in favour of the appellant.
2. During the pendency of the titled appeal, the appellant filed Criminal Miscellaneous No,1401-M of 2011 for his acquittal on the basis of compromise, whereupon report was called from the learned District and Sessions Judge, Chiniot, regarding genuineness or otherwise of the compromise, who, vide letter No,1562/D5 dated 30-7-2011, has reported that statements of Ghulam Mustafa (father), Zubaida Begum (mother) and Muhammad Pervaiz (husband) have been recorded. Through their statements all the legal heirs have conceded the factum of effecting a valid and bona fide compromise with Zafar Iqbal alias Kala (appellant) and they being legal heirs of deceased have forgiven the appellant in the name of Allah (Almighty) without receiving any compensation/Badl- e-Sulah. They have also waived their right of qisas and diyat. All the legal heirs of the deceased have also deposed that they have no objection if Zafar Iqbal alias Kala (appellant) is acquitted in this case. It was thus reported/authenticated by the learned District and Sessions Judge Chiniot that a valid compromise has been effected between the legal heirs of Zahida Bibi (deceased) and Zafar Iqbal alias Kala (appellant).
3. That learned counsel for the appellant while making submissions contends that as compromise has been effected in the main offence between Zafar Iqbal alias Kala appellant and the legal heirs of Zahida Bibi deceased,- therefore, the sentence inflicted in offence under sections 396 and 460, P.P.C., may be reduced to one already undergone by the appellant.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, after having gone through the report of the learned Sessions Judge and statements annexed therewith, submits that the State has no objection to the acceptance of the compromise to the extent of offence under section 302, P.P.C., however, contends that offence under sections 396 and 460, P.P.C., is not compoundable in nature.
5. As the report from the learned Sessions Judge Chiniot has been received which is complete in all aspects, therefore, after having gone through the said report of the learned District and Sessions Judge Chiniot and the statements annexed therewith, it appears that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties for mutual harmony and the Court sees no reason not to accept the same as it appears that the same is genuine and without any coercion, duress, pressure, compulsion, deception or threat coupled with the fact that it is according to the settled principles of the superior courts of the country including the apex Court. Resultantly to the extent of murder of Zahida Bibi deceased, this compromise is accepted, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment to the extent of Zafar Iqbal alias Kala (appellant) is set aside with regard to offence under section 302, P.P.C.
6. So far as contention of learned counsel for the appellant qua reduction in his sentence under sections 396 and 460, P.P.C., is concerned, admittedly both the offence under section 396, P.P.C., as well as offence under section 460, P.P.C., though are different but fall in the same definition. Section 71 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 is relevant to this question, which reads as under:- "71. Limit of punishment of offence made up of several offences. Where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such his offences, unless it be expressly provided.
' Where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, or ' where several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute, when combined, a different offence, the offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the Court which tries him could award for any one of such offences." (underlining by me)
Bare reading of the supra provisions of law make it clear that no one can be punished/sentenced twice in the offences falling within one definition. Hence, I am constraint to hold that the learned trial Court was not D justified in convicting the appellant simultaneously in offence under section 396,. P.P.C., as well as under section 460, P.P.C.
7. In view of submission of learned counsel for the appellant seeking reduction in his sentence in offence under sections 396/460, P.P.C., I have been persuaded to reduce the same for the following reasons:--
(i) Firstly that the appellant has suffered substantial portion of his sentence.
(ii) Secondly, in view of section 7.1 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, the appellant could not have been sentenced simultaneously in offence under section 396, P.P.C., and offence under section 460, P.P.C.
(iii) Thirdly I have also carefully gone through the record and fail to find any saza slip (conviction slip) annexed with the file, meaning thereby that the appellant is a first offender and has not been convicted earlier by any court of law.
' Hence, while juxtaposing the above facts with the aspect that legal heirs of Zahida Bibi deceased have already forgiven the appellant in the main offence under section 302, P.P.C., therefore, deeming it appropriate to meet the ends of justice, I have been persuaded to reduce the sentence from 10 years in both sections to already undergone by him. With the above observations, this appeal is partly allowed.