SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J.---Appellant Muhammad Sarwar was tried in case FIR No,609/2010 dated 29-8-2010 under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C., Police Station Bhikki District Sheikhupura and through the impugned judgment dated 29-6-2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, he has been convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to death with a compensation of Rs,1,00,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C.
Murder Reference No,222 of 2013 for confirmation or otherwise of death sentence awarded to appellant Muhammad Sarwar shall also be replied through this single judgment.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that Muhammad Sarwar appellant has been convicted and sentenced only to the extent of murder of Muhammad Ramzan and he has categorically been acquitted from the charge of murder of Muhammad Javed and causing injury to Muhammad Pervez and Mst. Tayyaba Bibi. The learned counsel further adds that the complainant of this case Muhammad Riaz had filed two different PSLAs bearing No,124 of 2013 titled (Muhammad Riaz v. Muhammad Fiaz etc.) and 137 of 2013 titled (Muhammad Riaz v. Muhammad Ashraf etc.) but subsequently both the petitions for special leave to appeal have already been dismissed as withdrawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner (complainant in this case). The learned counsel states that no appeal against acquittal of Muhammad Sarwar from the charge to the extent of murder of Muhammad Javed, and causing injuries to Muhammad Pervez and Mst.
Tayyaba Bibi has been filed by the complainant or the legal heirs of Muhammad Javed deceased.
3. In this appeal, an application i,e, Criminal Miscellaneous No,771-M of 2014 under Section 345 Cr.P.C. Seeking permission to compound the offence has been filed and a copy of the said application was sent to the learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura for submission of his report with regard to genuineness or otherwise of the compromise.
4. Report has been received from the learned Sessions Judge, wherein it is mentioned as under:- "According to the statements of Muhammad Hanif father and Mst. Sughran Bibi mother of Muhammad Ramzan deceased/victim appeared before this court and they got recorded their statements, wherein they have categorically stated that their deceased son Muhammad Ramzan was unmarried and therefore, they were his only legal heirs. They have been identified by their counsel Mr. Muhammad Zaman Sohail, Advocate. They further stated that they had compounded the offence of murder of their son with Muhammad Sarwar convict and have forgiven him in the name of Allah Almighty, waiving their right of Qisas and Diyat against him.
They showed no objection to his acquittal."
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant that no appeal against acquittal is pending against Muhammad Sarwar appellant and the office report dated 9-10-2014 also confirms the said stance taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant.
5. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General while opposing the compromise contends that although State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal under section 302/34, P.P.C. Or 324, P.P.C.
Against Muhammad Sarwar but act of Muhammad Sarwar appellant calls for his sentence under section 311, P.P.C. Keeping in view of his brutal act during the occurrence who has caused murder of an innocent young boy and he is liable to be convicted for Qatl-i-amd keeping in view section 301, P.P.C. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant Muhammad Sarwar contends that section 311, P.P.C. Keeping in view section 345(6), P.P.C. Does not attract in case of Tazir as the actual consequence of the acceptance of compromise is acquittal of accused. The learned counsel further contends that after acquittal of appellant from other charges and in the absence of any appeal filed on behalf of the complainant or the legal heirs of injured in this case Muhammad Sarwar appellant deserves acquittal under section 345(6), P. P. C
6. We find that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any duress and coercion, which even otherwise is in the interest of the parties so that they may forget the existing estrangement and may live in harmony and peace. The learned Sessions Judge has shown his satisfaction with regard to the genuineness of the compromise and the learned Deputy Prosecutor General has also half heartedly opposed acquittal of the appellant. The only objection raised by the learned Deputy Prosecutor General in this case is with regard to the applicability of sections 311, P.P.C. And 345(6), P.P.C. For ready reference section 345(6), P.P.C. Is reproduced as under:-
(1) ...................
(2) ...................
(3) ...................
(4) ...................
(5) ...................
(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. The law is very clear on this point that if composition of an offence has been made under this section, the same shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused. We, therefore, feel no hesitation in granting permission to compound the offence. Accordingly, Criminal Miscellaneous No,771-M of 2014 is accepted and Criminal Appeal No,1104 of 2013 is allowed with the result that conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant Muhammad Sarwar by the learned trial court through the impugned judgment dated 29-6-2013 is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. The appellant is in jail, he shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
8. Death Sentence of appellant/convict Muhammad Sarwar is NOT CONFIRMED and Murder Reference No,222 of 2013 is answered in the NEGATIVE.