NAZEER AHMED LANGOVE, J.---The instant Revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.12.2016 passed by Sessions Judge, Naseerabad at Dera Murad Jamali whereby the application filed by petitioner under section 338-E, P.P.C. read with section 345, Cr.P.C. was rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11th July, 2012 complainant Balach Khan lodged the instant FIR No. 130/2012 with PS City, Dera Murad Jamali wherein he alleged that on the fateful day he along with his brother and cousin Muhammad Umer preceded to 'Bazar' from their house to purchase house-hold articles. At about 5.40 p.m. confronted by the accused persons Alladina and Qadir Bakhsh who came on a bike having T.T. Pistol with them. They made fires which resulted the instantaneous death of his brother Abdul Sattar. Another person Azmat son of Muhammad Yousif sitting in a nearby Hotel also received injuries. Motive behind the incident was stated to be previous enmity. After registration of case the accused appellant was arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 13th March, 2013. The appeal filed by convict before this Court was also dismissed. Thereafter the parties compromised the matter and the same was filed before the tria1 Court for acceptance and acquittal of petitioner on the basis thereof, the learned trial Court recorded statements of five CWs and eventually rejected the compromise on the ground of suppressing the material facts from the Court. As per the order dated 27th December, 2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Naseer-abad at Dera Murad Jamali (impugned) the deceased was survived by following legal heirs:- i. Bana Fayer--Father of the deceased. ii. Mother of the deceased (name not known) iii. Mst. Rabia---Widow of the deceased. Mst. iv. Waziran Bibi---Daughter of the deceased. v. Zuhra Bibi---Daughter of the deceased. vi. Waqar Ahmed---Son of the deceased.
3. It may be noted that the instant compromise was effected between father of the (deceased one of the legal heirs) and Balach Khan complainant (brother of deceased who does not fall within the definition of legal heir of deceased and son of deceased namely Waqar Ahmed aged about 14/15 years). As per the statements of CW.1, 2 and 3 they are the sole legal heirs of deceased and competent to pardon the accused because mother of the deceased died prior to the incident and deceased's daughter namely Zuhra Bibi died in the year 2014 and the wife of deceased namely Rabi died in the year 2015. The accused was also survived by another wife namely Waziran Bibi but as the deceased before his death had divorced the said Waziran Bibi, as such; presently she does not fall within the definition of legal heir of deceased.
4. The learned trial Court on filing of compromise sought reports from the I0 of the case and Chief Officer, Municipal Committee, Dera Murad Jamali (the latter has issued death certificates regarding the death of deceased's widow namely Mst. Rabi and daughter namely Zuhra). Both the above referred CWs were examined by the trial Court during compromise proceedings but they did not support the version of alleged sole legal heirs of deceased. So much so the Chief Officer Municipal Committee CW.4 when appeared before the Court stated that he issued the death certificates of Mst. Rabi (wife of deceased) and Mst. Zuhra (daughter of deceased) on the basis of information conveyed by brother of deceased namely Balach Khan. One of the ground prevailed upon the trial Court while rejecting the compromise was that Mst. Waziran (another wife of deceased) was real sister of convict but the father of deceased intentionally did not disclose this fact in his affidavit. As before the trial Court divorce to Mst. Waziran Bibi by the deceased before his death and death of Mst. Rabia and Zuhra could not be proved in accordance with law rather statements of CW.4 and 5 runs contrary to the stand of the alleged sole legal heirs, therefore, I am of considered opinion that the trial Court rightly rejected the compromise. If the deceased, before his death had divorced Mst. Waziran Bibi legally he was bound to convey the factum of divorce to the Union Council concerned in writing. The alleged sole legal heirs can well prove the factum of divorce to Mst. Waziran Bibi by the deceased by producing the representative of Union Council alongwith record before the Court. The A factum of death of Mst. Rabia (wife) and Mst. Zuhra (daughter) is also required to be proved in accordance with law. The issuance of their death certificates only on the basis of information conveyed by deceased's brothers (without adopting the proper and legal course) by the CW.4 is also a matter of grave concern and thereby he exposed himself to be taken to task because his act smacks unofficial and irresponsible attitude.
The learned counsel for petitioner though tried his best to press for acceptance of compromise despite the above referred hurdles but this court being custodian of the fundamental rights of all the legal heirs of deceased cannot shut its eyes from the illegalities, irregularities and suppression of material facts by the petitioner as well as the alleged sole legal heirs. It may not he irrelevant to mention here that every person who wants indulgence of the court in any matter is legally and morally bound to approach the court with clean hands, otherwise the general people will lose their faith in courts. I am afraid that the legal heirs of the deceased on one hand wants acquittal of a convict in case registered under section 302, P.P.C. and on the other hand only by hoodwinking in the eyes of court and playing joke. There is another aspect of the case which cannot he left unattended i.e. the son of deceased is aged about D 14/15 years (not adult) therefore, compromise by a person who has not attained the age of puberty/immature is also questionable and a hurdle in petitioner's way which the later has to cross by properly/legally satisfying conscious of the court.
For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the order impugned passed by the trial court is neither illegal, unlawful, without jurisdiction nor the same is perverse, shocking or artificial, rather is based on sound and legal footings, therefore, I have no reason to set aside the same. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh compromise after fulfilling all the legal requirements before the trial court if he chooses so. If any compromise was filed before the trial court, the latter is directed to decide the same on its own merits and without being influenced from the instant order.