KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- Five persons, namely, Ghulam Haider, Waris, Sabir, Naseer and Inayat were accused of having formed an unlawful assembly while being armed with deadly weapons; having thereafter trespassed into the house of one Bashir; having murdered the said Bashir; having thereafter trespassed into the house of one Ghulam Nabi and having murdered Mst.
Nazir Begum, the wife of the said Ghulam Nabi who was a brother of Bashir deceased and having also caused injuries on the person of Mst. Samia Begum, the wife of another brother of Bashir deceased and Ghulam Nabi abovementioned as also on the person of one Ijaz Ahmad, a guest in the house of the said Ghulam Nabi.
2. Ghulam Haider accused absconded after the occurrence and was declared a proclaimed offender.
3. The remaining four accused persons who were tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Gujrat, were acquitted of the charge of murdering Bashir deceased. Sabir and Waris were also acquitted of the charge of trespass and of launching a murderous assault on Mst. Samia Begum and Ijaz Ahmad as also of Mst. Nazir Begum's murder.
4. Naseer and Inayat accused were however, convicted for the murder of Mst. Nazir Begum, for launching a murderous assault on Mst. Samia Begum and, Ijaz Ahmad and for trespass.
5. They were both convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. And while Naseer was sentenced to death, Inayat convict was punished with imprisonment for life. Each one of them was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 or to suffer six months' S.I. In default of payment of the said fine.
6. They were both convicted also under section 307/34, P.P.C. Oil two counts and each one of them was sentenced to rive years' R.I. And to a fiine of Rs.2,000 or three months' S.I. In default of payment of the said fine,
7. They were both further convicted under section 449/34, P.P.C. And each one of them was directed to undergo five years' R.I. On the said charge.
8. This was through judgment, dated 27-6-1990 of the said learned Additional Sessions Judge of Gujrat.
9. Murder Reference No.136 of 1990 seeks confirmation of the sentence of death imposed on Naseer convict while the convictions and sentences above noticed are being impugned by both the convicts i.e. Naseer and Inayat, through Criminal Appeal No.543 of 1990.
10. Both these matters are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
11. During the pendency of these proceedings before this Court, it was submitted before us that the parties had compounded the offences in question and it was consequently prayed that the two appellants be acquitted.
12. In pursuance of a direction issued by us on 27-4-1991 to produce the heirs of Mst. Nazir Begum deceased and also to produce the two injured victims of the occurrence in question, to state about the said compromise, we are informed that the husband land the parents of Mst. Nazir Begum deceased had died before the occurrence in question and she had been survived only by two sons.
Namely, Muhammad Ashraf and Imtiaz Ahmad and two daughters, namely, Mst. Khalida and Mst.
Sajida Parveen.
13. Imtiaz Ahmad, Mst. Khalida Begum and Mst. Sajida Parveen from amongst the heirs of Mst. Nazir Begum deceased and Mst. Samia Begum and Ijaz Ahmad, the injured victims of the occurrence in question appeared before us and their statements were separately recorded. An application bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No.1449/M of 1991 was submitted before us stating that Muhammad Ashraf, the above-mentioned son of Mst. Nazir Begum had gone away to Kuwait in connection with his employment and that it was not possible for him to appear before this Court to make a statement, as directed. It was further submitted that the said Muhammad Ashraf had, before proceeding to Kuwait, sworn two affidavits, one at Kharian and the other at Lahore, deposing therein that he had also compounded the offences in question by granting AFW to the culprits and it was consequently prayed that Mr. Ata Ullah, Oath Commissioner at Kharian and Mr. M.S. Hashmi, Oath Commissioner at Lahore, who had attested the said affidavits, be examined to prove the said affidavits in lieu of the personal statement of the sail Ashraf, which was directed to be recorded before this Court. Through a separate order passed on 11-11-1991, we had allowed this prayer in view of the fact that the parties which were locked-up in criminal litigation appeared to have settled their disputes as a result of which, some of the members of the complainant party of the present case who stood convicted in a murder case of the present appellants party, had also been acquitted by the Honourable Supreme Court on account of the composition of the said offence by the present appellants party.
14. As a. Result of the grant of this prayer, statements of Mr. Ata Ullah and Mr. M.S. Hashmi, the above-mentioned Oath Commissioners, were recorded by us.
15. From the statements so recorded, we arc satisfied that Muharnmad Ashraf, Imtiaz Ahmad. Mst.
Khalida Begum and Mst. Sajida Parveen are the only surviving heirs of Mst. Nazir Begum deceased and that they have Compounded the offence in question by granting AFW to the two appellants.
16. We are also satisfied that Mst. Samia Begum and Ijaz Ahmad, the two injured victims of the occurrence in question have voluntarily and of their own freewill have: granted AFW to the said two co-appellants with respect to the injuries suffered by them at the hands of the said appellants.
17. Despite the proof of the two affidavits sworn by Muhammad Ashraf abovementioned and our satisfaction that he had also granted AFW to the appellants, it was further stated on oath before - us by Imtiaz Ahmad, a brother of Muhammad Ashraf that the appellants party had paid Rs.57,000 being the share in Diyyat of Ashraf through Cheque No.22-S-309516 dated 23-11-1991 drawn on Dhoria Branch of Gujrat District of United Bank Limited and that he had received the said cheque on behalf of his brother Ashraf and further that he shall deposit the same in Ashrahs account.
18. There is nothing on record which could warrant punishment under section 311, P.P.C. By way of Tazeer.
19. Consequently, the offences under section 302/34, and under section 307/34, P.P.C., of which the present appellants stand convicted and in respect of which they also stand punished, are allowed to be compounded.
20. The two appellants are, therefore, acquitted of the said charges as envisaged by the provisions of section 345, Cr.P.C.
21. As has been mentioned above, both the appellants also stand convicted and punished under section 449/34, P.P.C., which offence is, however, not compoundable.
22. They were punished with five years' R.I. For the said charge but in view of the compromise reached between the parties and also keeping in view the prospects of peaceful co-existence of the two parties, it would be in consonance with the interest of justice, if the sentences of imprisonment awarded to the two appellants under section 449/34, P.P.C. Is reduced.
23. We accordingly reduce the term of imprisonment of both the appellants under section 449/34; P.P.C. To the term of imprisonment already suffered by them.
24. The appellants shall, therefore, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.
25. Murder Reference No.136 of 1990 and Criminal Appeal No.543 of 1990 are disposed of in the above terms.