MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The instant criminal revision under section 439, Cr.P.C. read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved from the judgment/order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Nagar , whereby the learned Court dismissed the petition under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners for his acquittal from the charges level against them under section 302, P.P.C. vide FIR No.03/2018 of Police Station Chalat, Nagar .
2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners were not charged in the FIR and was arrested later on the basis of supplementary statements of some PWs. The petitioners were found involved in the case. As evident from the record the petitioners allegedly committed the murder of Saima Batool in the night of 15/16 March, 2018 at 2000 hours. The dead body of deceased lady was buried in the field of Abbas Ali in front of his home.
3. The dead body of deceased lady was exhumed in presence of a Magistrate and Medical Team. During investigation it transpired that 3/4 days prior to the incident a female baby was given birth by Saima Batool, which was murdered and buried by the accused/petitioners. The place of burial of the baby girl was also pointed out by the accused/petitioner Iran Ali in presence of Magistrate and other marginal witnesses.
4. After submission of challan the learned counsel for the petitioners moved an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. mainly on the grounds that a compromise has been effected between the parties and the petitioners/accused deserve acquittal from the charges. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners does not qualify the criteria of "Fasad-Fil-Arz" hence finding of learned trial Court are erroneous and misconceived. The learned counsel relied on 2001 PCr.LJ 1636, 2014 PCr.LJ 1454, 2014 SCMR 1155 and 2000 PCr.LJ 1116 in support of his contention. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted at bar that the offences under section 302, P.P.C. are compoundable under section 345(2), Cr.P.C., and when a compromise has been effected, no useful purpose will be served to continue with trial of the case as the legal heirs are competent to enter into a compromise and the petitioners deserve acquittal under section 345(6), Cr.P.C.. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred chapter-5 of Muhammadan Law and PLD 2011 Lah. 423 to support his contention that mother of an illegitimate child would be entitled for custody of the child hence the legal heirs of mother would be competent to ef fect compromise.
5. The learned Dy. Advocate General submitted that the revision petition is not maintainable being mis-conceived and the judgment/order of learned trial Court is well reasoned and in accordance with law, which does need interference by this Court.
6. As evident from the FIR and the final police report, the -murder of deceased Mst. Saima Batool was committed on account of "Ghairat". The murder of an infant newly born baby was also commi tted by the accused as reflected in final police report and the place of burial of the infant was pointed out by the petitioners/accused. The offence of honour killing have been made non-compoundable and the punishment provided for the offence has to be awarded under section 302(b), P.P.C. Section 311 places an embargo and stipulates that the punishment for the offence of honour killing shall not be less than 10 years. In the explanation of section 311, P.P.C. the Fasad-Fil-Araz has been defined and includes the manner of commission of murder besides being a habitual, previous, convict etc.
7. For the sake of arguments if the offence under section 302, P.P.C. upto the extent of deceased lady is considered as compoundable, what would be the fate of the murder of newly born baby girl, which was allegedly murdered and buried by the accused after throttling. The above question of law and facts shall be decided in accordance with law and after recording of evidence by the learned trial Court. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners deals with dif ferent situation and not applicable in the instant case.
8. There is no merit in the instant revision petition, which is dismissed accordingly .