' This revision application has been filed under sections 435 and 439, Cr.P.C. By on'e Feroze Khan, whereby he has challenged his conviction.
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant Feroze Khan son of Sazi Muhammad was tried under section 304-A, P.P.C. By the Additional City Magistrate No,II, Karachi who vide his judgment, dated 30th March, 1983 convicted him under section 304-A, P.P.C. And sentenced him to undergo R.I. For 12 months and pay a fine of Rs,2,000 or in default of payment of fine to suffer three months' imprisonment. He was also directed to pay compensation of Rs, 3,000 as provided under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To the heirs of the deceased, Hussain Shah. Applicant filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the judgment, dated 5th November, 1983 by the Sessions Judge, Karachi. He has filed this Revision Application against both the orders.
3. Prosecution case is that on 7th February, 1979 the applicant was driving his wagon bearing No,804-992 when deceased Hussain Shah came under his vehicle and received injuries. He took injured to the Abbassi Shaheed Hospital, Karachi where he died. The case proceeded and he was finally convicted as stated above.
4. Mr. Attaullah Khan, Advocate for the applicant has not challenged the conviction but prays reduction of the sentence on the ground that widow of deceased Hussain Shah have compromised with the applicant. The application of compromise duly signed by Asghari Begum widow of Hussain Shah, deceased, has been placed on record of this Court. Asghari Begum is present in Court and she states that she has forgiven the accused and Court may also forgive him.
The contents of the compromise application filed by Asghari Begum are given below:- "It is prayed by the widow of deceased that she has entered into compromise out of the Court with the deceased after receiving consideration and as such she has forgiven him for the offence which the accused committed by causing the death of her husband on account of his rash and negligent act. It is thus prayed that the accused be dealt with leniently, as he is family man having minor children who have been rendered shelterless after sending the accused to Jail by the learned Sessions Judge who dismissed his Appeal. 'I have forgiven the accused, and the Court may also forgive him.'
' Mr. Attaullah Khan has relied upon the following case-law:-
(1) PLD 1982 SC 139
(2) 1982 SCM R 695
(4) 1982 SCR 641
(5) 1976 SCMR 193
(6) 1983 P Cr. L .1 2297
(8) 1983 SCMR 1281 ' In a case of Muzaffar Mustafa alias Zafar Ali v. State 1982 SCM R 695 their Lordships have considered the question of sentence in view of the assertion that parties have reached 'compromise and thereby the sentence of death was reduced to that of imprisonment of life and also benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The same view has also been taken in a case Muhammad Bashir v. State 1976 SCMR 193.
5. I also refer to a case of Muhammad Nawaz v. State 1983 PCr.LJ 2377. In that case complainant entered into compromise with the accused in a case under section 307, P.P.C. Which is not compoundable but in view of the compromise the sentence was reduced. In a case of Shamroz Khan v. State 1983 SCMR 1281, wherein accused was convicted under section 307, P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer six years' R.I. And fine of Rs,500. But he remained in jail for 7 months when his conviction was reduced. Relying on a Supreme Court case, Mr. Justice Khizar Hayat Khan on the basis of the compromise sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for the period already gone.
6. Mr. Abdul Wali Makhdoom counsel appearing for the State stated that this is a case where lenient view be taken. He has further contended that he satisfied himself that some compensation has been paid to the widow of deceased as he has confirmed this from Mst. Asghari Begum who was present in Court on the day of hearing of this appeal.
7. The applicant was remanded to custody by learned Sessions Judge on 5th November, 1983. His bail plea was not considered by this Court, therefore, he is in Jail since then. He has remained in Jail for more than three months.
8. In view of the circumstances that widow has excused the applicant and she has also received some compensation. Therefore, I reduce the sentence of the applicant to already undergone but maintain the fine and compensation as ordered by the trial Court in the judgment. .