' In a case under section 304-A, P.P.C., Muhammad Amir and Allah Ditta were sentenced to suffer 5 years' R.I. And fine of Rs,10,000 or in default 6 months' R.I. Each by Mr. Munir Mubarak, Judicial Magistrate, Sargodha, vide judgment, dated 30-11-1986. It was ordered that Rs,4,000 will be paid as compensation out of the fine to heirs of each of the deceased. Muhammad Amir filed Criminal Appeal No, 709 of 1986 and Allah Ditta filed Criminal Appeal No, 9 of 1987 in this Court to challenge their conviction and sentence. Both the appeals arise out of one judgment and as such, will be decided together.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that in an accident, on 2-11-1984, at about 7-30 p.m., near Chak No, 99/S.B., Police Station Kirana, District Sargodha, between the truck driven by Muhammad Amir accused and the bus driven by Allah Ditta, accused, four persons namely Ibrahim, Mst. Amina Bibi, her son Abdur Razzaq and Mst. Farkhanda Bibi died while Mst. Khudeja P.W.4 and Mst. Munazza Bibi (not examined) received injuries. The two appellants were convicted and sentenced after completion of trial as stated above.
3. The prosecution case is supported by Muhammad Ishaq P.W.1, Muhammad Aslam P.W.2, Shabbir P.W.6 besides the injured eye-witness P.W.4 Mst. Khudeja. The medical evidence was furnished by Dr. Altaf Ali P.W.3 and Dr. Muhammad Zahid P.W.11 who both conducted post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of four deceased and examined the injured witness. The case was investigated by S.I. Amir Akbar P.W.10. The evidence of the rest of the witnesses was of formal nature.
4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the record. The eye-witnesses were independent having no enmity with the accused to falsely involve them in this case. It is not denied that the two appellants were respectively driving their vehicles when this occurrence took place. On appreciation of the evidence I find that the conviction of the two appellants under section 304-A, P.P.C. Was rightly recorded.
5. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the accused have compromised with the legal heirs of the deceased and as such, they be acquitted from the charge specially when they are in lock-up since their conviction vide impugned judgment, dated 30-11-1986. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed on record affidavit of Abdul Gliafoor, Abdur Rashid and Abdul Hamid sons of Ibrahim deceased in support of the compromise wherein it is stated that they have received reasonable compensation from the accused. The compromise has been signed by the three deponents. They have given their national identity-card numbers also. The affidavit was sworn by them before the Notary Public and the compromise has been certified by a Magistrate 1st Class, Tando Bago, District Badeen, Sind. Mst. Farkhanda Bibi deceased was married to Muhammad Ashraf and had minor children. Muhammad Ashraf, husband of Mst. Farkhanda Bibi is present in Court. He has shown me his identity-card. He has also filed an affidavit and compromise if ating therein that he has received reasonable compensation from the accused. Inayat Ali is husband of Mst. Amina Bibi deceased and father of Abdur Razzaq deceased. He is also present today in Court along with his identity-card. He has filed affidavit and compromise stating therein that he has received reasonable compensation from the accused.
I have considered the above contentions and the fact of compromise between the parties. Both the accused remained in lock-up during trial of the case for two months. They are now in prison serving sentence under the impugned judgment since 30-11-1986. This means that after conviction, they have already served imprisonment for one year two months and eighteen days. Keeping in view these facts and the compromise between the parties, I maintain the conviction of the two appellants under section 304-A, P.P.C. But reduce their sentence of imprisonment to one already undergone by them.
' In view of the fact that both the appellants have duly compensated the heirs of the deceas&I, the sentence of fine is remitted.
6. With the above modification, both the appeals are dismissed.