MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---Muhammad Yaqoob, Muhammad Ghafoor and Muhammad Sadiq respondents were tried under section 302 P.P.C. For the murder of Mst, Razia Bibi, daughter of Muhammad Sadiq petitioner. During trial, Muhammad Yaqoob, husband of the deceased raised the plea of grave and sudden provocation to the effect that on seeing his were/deceased in compromising position with a stranger, he strangulated her to death. The trial Court disbelieved the prosecution case and believing the defence version acquitted Muhammad Ghafoor and Muhammad Sadiq and convicted Muhammad Yaqoob respondent under section 304-1 P.P.C. And sentenced to 5 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.2,000 in default thereof six months' R.I.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not questioned the acquittal of Muhammad Ghafoor and Muhammad Sadiq. He simply requested for compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel was of the view that the trial Court was obliged to direct the convict/respondent to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. Learned counsel for the State has not supported this revision.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that direction to pay compensation to the heirs of the deceased person was/is not a mandatory provision. Section 544-A. Cr.P.C. May be reproduced advantageously: Section 544-A. Cr.P.C.--- (1) Whenever a person is convicted of an offence in the commission whereof the death of, or hurt, injury, or mental aguish or psychological damage, to, any person is caused, or damage to or loss or destruction of any property is caused, the Court shall, when convicting such person, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing it otherwise directs, order the person convicted to pay to the heirs of the person whose death has been caused, or to the persons hurt or injured, or to the person to whom mental anguish or psychological damage has been caused, or to the owner, of the property damaged, lost or destroyed, as the case may be, such compensation as the Court may determine having regard to the circumstances of the case.
(2) The compensation payable under subsection (1) shall be recoverable as (an arrear of land revenue) and the Court may further order that, in default of payment, (or of recovery as aforesaid) the person ordered to pay such compensation shall suffer imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, or As it be a Court of the Magistrate of the third class, for a period not exceeding thirty days.
(3) The compensation payable under subsection (1) shall be in addition to any sentence, which the Court may impose for the offence of which the person directed to pay compensation has been convicted.
(4) The provisions of subsections (2 B), (2 C), (3) and (4) of section 250 shall, as far as may be, apply to payment of compensation under this section.
(5) An order under this section may also be made by an Appellate,, Court or by a Court when exercising its powers of revision.
The words "unless for the reasons to be recorded in writing" will show that the I provisions are not mandatory and the trial Court/Appellate Court/Court of revision can, for the reasons to be recorded, refuse to award compensation to the heirs of the deceased. However, each case has its own facts. Since in the instant case prosecution evidence was disbelieved and Muhammad Yaqoob, respondent, was condemned out of his own mouth as he admitted to kill his were on seeing her in compromising position with a stranger, so I feel that in such like cases it may not be proper to direct payment of compensation for the death of Zania or a Zani who herself/himself provokes others and invites death. I feel that no case for payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased is made out. So the revision is dismissed.