MUHAMMAD SALEEM JESSAR, J.---Appellants Awais son of Muhammad by caste Soomro and Saddam Hussain son of Hakim Ali Soomro were tried in Sessions Case No.375/2012, re-State v. Awais and others , arisen out of Crime No.42/2012 of Police Station B-Section Shandadkot , and vide judgment dated 19.09.2019 , passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I/ Model Criminal Trial Court Shandadkot, they were convicted for offence under Section 302(b) read with Section 34, P.P.C. and sentenced to "imprisonment for life" and to pay Rs.10,00,000/- each as compensation to legal heirs of deceased Ajeet Kumar in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C., in default thereof to suf fer S.I for one year more.
2. Against their conviction and sentence the appellants filed instant appeal, which was admitted for regular hearing on 26.09.2019. However , during pendency of the appeal, the appellants entered into compromise with legal heirs of deceased and such applications under Section 345(5), Cr.P.C. (M.A. No.5300/20 19) and under Section 345(6), Cr.P.C. (M.A. No.5301/2019) were filed, which were sent to the learned trial Court, for enquiry as to the legal heirs of the deceased as well as genuineness or otherwise of compromise between the parties.
3. The learned trial Court in its report dated 18.12.2019, available with the file, has mentioned that as per reports furnished by the concerned Mukhtiarkar , SHO and NADRA, deceased Ajeet Kumar left four brothers and two sisters as his surviving legal heirs. The learned trial Court after recording statements of male legal heirs of deceased has affirmed the fact of compromise between them; however , as per report the female legal heirs of deceased i.e. two sisters, namely , Kiran Devi and Rakhi did not appear before the learned trial Court.
4. Today , Shrimati Kiran Devi and Shrimati Rakhi, the sisters of deceased Ajeet Kumar have appeared; they have filed their respective affidavits thereby affirming the fact that they have patched up with appellants Awais and Saddam Hussain and have pardoned them and they do not claim any monetary compensation or Badl-e-Sulh from the accused/appellants. All the legal heirs of deceased appeared before this Court and categorically stated that they have pardoned the appellants and they have no objection if the compromise is accepted and the appellants/accused are acquitted of the charge.
5. The learned DPG appearing for the State has raised objection that the legal heirs of deceased are non-Muslims whereas appellants/ accused as Muslims, therefore, no compromise could be effected between them. Confronting with the above position, the learned counsel for the appellants places his reliance on the case of Abdul Majeed v.
The State reported in 2001 PCr.LJ 318 (Karachi), and submits that there is no restriction under the provisions of Section 345, Cr .P.C., or qualification as to person, between whom the compromise can be ef fected.
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. Under the scheme of Criminal Procedure Code, there is no restriction or catego ry provided for any competence or otherwise of a person entering into a compromise. The offence is compoundable, besides legal heirs have waived the right of their "Qisas and Diyat ", hence there is no impediment, which may restrain or restrict the parties for entering into compromise. In case of Abdul Majeed (supra), this Court while dealing with identical issue has maintained as under: "The compounding of offence is regulated under section 345, Cr.P.C. it does not provide for any competence or otherwise of a person entering into a compromise nor does it restrict a Muslim or a non-Muslim from entering into such compromise. The only qualification for entertaining such application is the compoundability of the offence and in this case the offence for which appellants were charged and sentenced is unde r section 320, P.P.C. They were convicted to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay Diyat amount equivalent to the value of 30630 grams of silver amounting to Rs.3,06,300. All the legal heirs of the deceased have given their respective affidavits whereby they have compounded the offence and expressed their desire to forgive the appellant. Section 320, P.P.C., is mentioned in the second column of the table wherein compoundable offences are listed and it is so provided that the offence falling under section 320 may with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending be compounded by the person mentioned in the third column of the table and in the instant case father Manik and Shrimati Ilma the mother of the deceased have given their respective affidavits to forego the Qisas and Diyat. There is no other restric tion in the provision of 345, Cr.P.C. or qualification attached as to person between whom the compounding can be effected, therefore, I am of the view that compounding of the offence can be effected between a Muslim and non-Muslims and even between non-Muslims inter se. The applications are in order duly supported by respective affidavits of exoneration. The Permission to compromise is granted and compromise is accepted as required under section 345(6), Cr.P.C. Resultantly the appellant is to be released forthwith if not required in other case. All the applications stand disposed of. Appeal accepted."
8. Therefore, objection raised by learned Add. P.G. in view of dictum laid down by this Court in case of Abdul Majeed (supra) carries no weight.
9. All the legal heirs of deceased appeare d before this Court and categorically stated that they have pardoned the appellants and have also waived their right of "Qisas and Diyat ". This fact also gets support from the report furnished by the trial Court, which reveals that compromise between the parties appears to be voluntary , genuine and without any duress or coercion and since there is no other impediment to allow the compromise, therefore, permission to compound the offence is accorded to the parties, and in result whereof compromise between the parties is hereby accepted. Consequently , appellants Awais and Saddam Hussain are acquitted of the charge in terms of compromise. The appellants are reportedly behind Bars, they shall be released forthwith, if their custody is not required in any other case.
10. The appeal along with listed applications stand disposed of in the above terms.