' MUHAMMAD ASLAM ARAIN, J.--- Appellant Noor Muhammad son of Wali Muhammad was tried on the charge of murder of his wife Mst. Shahzadi on 7-4-1984 in the house situated in Hindu Para, opposite Sector 5/F, New Karachi. On conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi Central by judgment, dated 16-1-1992, convicted appellant under section 302, P.P.C. And awarded to him death sentence and further ordered him to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To the heirs of deceased Mst. Shahzadi. We have before us, appeal filed by the convict and confirmation of sentence.
2. Before the appeal and confirmation was considered, the complainant moved an application under section 345(6) of Cr.P.C. For accepting compromise arrived at between the parties. Such application dated 27-1-1992 is supported by affidavits of Muhammad Ismail, Muhammad Ibrahim and Muhammad Rafique brothers of deceased and Mst. Anwar Bibi mother of deceased.
3. On 17-2-1992, the application was forwarded to the learned Sessions Judge for holding enquiry and for disposal of this application in accordance with law. The enquiry report dated 21-4-1992 sent to this Court reveals that out of the four legal heirs of the deceased, only Mst. Anwar Bibi, the real mother stated that she had forgiven the appellant. Muhammad Ismail the brother of deceased stated during enquiry that he had not forgiven/pardoned the appellant. For the remaining two legal heirs of the deceased, the learned Sessions Judge reported that they have also not forgiven the appellant.
4. However, all the aforesaid four legal heirs of the deceased Mst. Shahzadi have filed their respective affidavits dated 23-11-1992 before this Court and have stated that they have compromised with the appellant and have excused/forgiven him.
5. Appellant's learned Advocate was required to submit a proper application in accordance with the procedure and form prescribed by the Supreme Court for accepting a compromise for disposal of criminal appeal. Such pro forma for effecting compromise under Qisas and Diyat Ordinance has been filed. Except one of the heirs of deceased, namely, Muhammad Rafique (brother) rest of them have appeared and have stated that they have forgiven the appellant and do not claim `Qisas', `Diyat' or `Arch'. For Muhammad Rafique, (brother of deceased) the three legal heirs present have stated that he is a narcotics addict and his whereabouts are not known.
6. Mr. Abdul Hakeem H. Bijarani, learned AA.-G. Has not opposed this application. He states that the application is in accordance with the procedure and form as provided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
7. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the application which is supported by affidavits of legal heirs of the deceased. By virtue of section 4 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance (IV of 1990), certain offences have been made compoundable. It reads as follows:- ' Section 4.--- Amendment of section 345, Act V of 1898 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), hereinafter referred to, as the said Code, in section 345, in subsection (2), in the table,--
(a) before the entries relating to the offence punishable under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, the following new entries shall be inserted namely "Murder --- 302, 303 by the heirs of victim.
8. Such being the case, offence of murder under section 302, P.P.C. Is made compoundable by the heirs of the victim. In the case of Hassamuddin and anothIr v. The State reported in PLD 1992 SC 246, compromise was accepted and appellants were acquitted. Similarly in Ghulam Rasool v. The State 1991 P Cr. L J 1734, a learned D.B. Of the Lahore High Court, accepted compromise and acquitted the convicts/appellants.
9. We, therefore, allow application under section 345(2) of Cr.P.C. And grant permission for compromise, we also allow application under section 345(6), Cr.P.C. And accept compromise.
Since the legal heirs of the victim Mst. Shahzadi do not claim `Diyat' or `Arsh', on acceptance of compromise, all other legal consequences shall also follow including that the appellant stands acquitted and confirmation of death sentence is declined.
Compromise allowed.