' This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No,85/J of 1992 filed by one Ahmad Ali who had been convicted under section 302, P.P.C. For the murder of one Allah Ditta and punished with imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,2,000 or one year's S.I. In default of payment of fine. In addition to the said conviction and punishment, he was also found guilty for an offence under section 452, P.P.C. And was sentenced to three years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,1,000 or six months' S.I. In default of payment of fine. The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. This was vide judgment, dated 28-6-1992 of the learned Sessions Judge of Kasur.
2. During the pendency of this appeal, Criminal Miscellaneous No,1413/M of 1993 was filed praying for the acquittal of Ahmad Ali appellant on the ground that the heirs of the deceased had entered into a compromise with him with respect to the murder in question.
3. In support of this plea, the heirs of the deceased, namely, Mst. Bibi Rani (mother); Mst. Faman Bibi (widow); Muhammad Azam, Riasat Ali, Maqsood and Akram (sons) and Mst. Sughran Bibi and Mst.
Safia Bibi (daughters), appeared before this Court whose statements were recorded on oath on their identification by Mr. Naseer Ahmad Butt, Advocate. Each one of them deposed about their above described relationship with the deceased and further that the father of the deceased, namely Haji Sardar Ali had died long before this occurrence. They added that Ahmad Ali appellant was a son of a sister of Allah Ditta deceased and each one of the abovementioned heirs had granted AFW to Ahmad Ali appellant in the name of Allah on account of the close relationship between the parties. They all prayed that the said Ahmad Ali be acquitted.
4. I am satisfied with the abovementioned compromise reached, and the statements made by the above described heirs of Allah Ditta deceased. Nothing exists on record which could persuade me either not to accept the said compromise or to punish the appellant by way of Tazir under section 311, P.P.C.
5. Consequently, in view of the above noted compromise, Ahmad Ali appellant is acquitted of the charge under section 302, P.P.C. As envisaged by the provisions of section 345, Cr.P.C. The conviction and sentences etc. Recorded against him on the said charge are set aside.
6. He also stands convicted and punished under section 452, P.P.C. Which offence is not compoundable. Keeping in view the above compromise the appellants' conviction under section 452, P.P.C. Is maintained but the sentence of three years' R.I. Awarded to him is reduced to the imprisonment already suffered by him after extending to him the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. And the amount of fine imposed on him under this charge is reduced to an amount of Rs,500. The term of imprisonment ordered to be suffered by the appellant in default of payment of fine under section 452, P.P.C. Is, however, maintained.
7. It is, therefore, directed that Ahmad Ali appellant shall be set at liberty either on payment of Rs,500 as fine under section 452, P.P.C. Or in default of payment of the same on sufferance of the imprisonment ordered to be undergone by him in lieu thereof.
8. Criminal Appeal No,85/J of 1992 stands disposed of in the above terms.