' The present petitioner, Meraj Din alias Maja, having been convicted under section 325/34, P.P.C.
And sentenced to R.I. For one year and a fine of Rs,1,000 or in default thereof to undergo S.I. For one month, along with his co-accused Muhammad Ashraf (since died), by the learned trial Court, vide judgment, dated 31-5-1994, for allegedly having caused injuries on different parts of the bodies of the complainant, Abdul Shakoor and his father Muhammad Suleman with a Sota, had challenged his conviction in appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, vide judgment, dated 22-2-1997. Hence, the present criminal revision petition.
2. Brief facts, leading to the present criminal revision petition, are that on 31-12-1988 Abdul Shakoor complainant lodged a complaint Exh.P.A., alleging therein that on 27-12-1988 at about 2-00 p.m.
During a fight between the children of Dogars in front of his house, coaccused and real son of the present petitioner, namely, Muhammad Ashraf alias Aslam (since died) slapped his brother and on being inquired about the reason by the complainant in the presence of his father, Muhammad Suleman, the said Muhammad Ashraf alias Aslam brought a hatchet from his house and his father Meraj Din alias Maja, armed with Sota, also reached there. The latter inflicted Sota blows on different parts of the body of the complainant and when his father Suleman tried to rescue the complainant, he (Suleman) was also inflicted hatchet blows on his head, back and hand by Muhammad Ashraf alias Aslam accused. The alarm raised attracted Muhammad Sarwar and Anwar Ali, who rescued the victims. On the basis of the said complaint the instant case was registered vide F.I.R. No,719 of 1988.
3. After usual investigation, both the accused were challaned by the police. At the trial the prosecution had examined as many as seven witnesses to prove its case. P.W.1 Abdul Shakoor was the complainant as well as an injured witness, whereas P.W.2 Muhammad Suleman was another injured witness and P.W.3 Muhammad Sarwar was an eye-witness of the occurrence. P.W.4 Allah Bakhsh and P.W.5 Muhammad Ilyas were the witnesses of recoveries of hatchet and Sota whereas P.W.7 Haji Gul Muhammad Sub-Inspector was the Investigating Officer of the instant case. P.W.6 Dr. Shahid Jameel had medically examined the complainant and the other injured P.W.
4. In their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. The petitioner and his co-accused Muhammad Ashraf alias Aslam (since died) had denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. They had also produced Janna D.W.1 and Nazir Ahmad D.W.2 in their defence.
5. The learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as well as his co-accused, and in appeal, during the pendency of which Muhammad Ashraf alias Aslam co-accused, had died, the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner was maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, as stated above.
6. On the present criminal revision petition being taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that as contended in Criminal Miscellaneous 1 of 1997 herein, both the injured P.Ws. i,e, complainant Abdul Shakoor son of Muhammad Suleman (P.W.1) and his real father Muhammad Suleman son of Labhu (P.W.2) have forgiven the petitioner/convict, and that, therefore, the present revision petition be disposed of as the case in question stands compounded under the provisions of section 345, Cr.P.C.
7. It was directed that the statement of the complainant Abdul Shakoor injured P.W.1 be recorded and the same duly recorded, has been signed and attested by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
8. The other injured P.W.2 Muhammad Suleman, the real father of injured P.W.1 named above, has submitted his affidavit to the effect that he has forgiven the petitioner/convict, but has not put in appearance and in that respect his real son i,e, injured P.W.1 Abdul Shakoor submitted that he was seriously sick and was unable to attend the Court today. However, his affidavit has been taken into consideration, which specifically states that he has forgiven the convict/petitioner Meraj Din alias Maja and has further contended for his case to be disposed of accordingly.
9. Consequently, in accordance with the provisions of section 345, Cr.P.C. As the offences in question i,e, under section 325/34, P.P.C. Can be Compounded by the persons to whom hurt has been caused, the instant case duly stands compounded by the injured P.Ws. And the accused, as recorded above and is hereby allowed accordingly.
10. Resultantly, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (5-A) of the said section 345, Cr.P.C.
Read with subsection (6) thereof, the accused/ revision petitioner merits acquittal. For reference, the said subsections (5-A) and (6) of section 345, Cr.P.C. Are reproduced hereinbelow:-- "(5-A) A High Court acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under section 439 (and a Court of Session so acting under section 439-A) may allow any person to compound any offence which he is competent to compound under this section.
(6) The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused (with whom the offence has been compounded)."
11. Pursuant to what has been stated above, the present criminal revision petition is allowed, and consequently Criminal Miscellaneous No,1 of 1997 herein stands disposed of accordingly, and the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused petitioner vide judgment, dated 31-5-1994, and the judgment, dated 22-2-1997, whereby the appeal preferred against the same was dismissed, is hereby set aside and the accused/petitioner is acquitted of the offence charged. He shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.
Compromise accepted.