MUHAMMAD YUSUF Versus MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH

Appellant Khurshid Ali was tried alongwith his father Muhammad Ali appellant and brother namely Muhammad Arshad appellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Lahore on the charges under section 302/307 read with section 34, P.P.C. for having committed the murder of Muhammad Sadiq and for having caused the murderous assault on Muhammad Ayub, Muhammad Yaqoob and Muhammad Anwar.

2. Vide judgment, dated 21‑10‑1985, the learned trial Judge found the appellant Khurshid Ali guilty on the charge under section 302, P.P.C. therefore, he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. ten thousand only, and on the charge under section 307, P.P.C., the appellant was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Rs. one thousand. It was however, directed that both the sentences would run concurrently. Muhammad Irshad Ali and Muhammad Ali appellants Nos. 2 arid 3 were found guilty under section 323, P.P.C., and were sentenced to one year's R.I. each.

3. During the coarse of hearing of this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. R.A. Awan, Advocate stated that the parties were neighbours, and thus had entered into a compromise. In order to verify the above statement, I summoned the heirs of the deceased, and the three injured witnesses. All the witnesses appeared before this Court, and made their statements exonerating the appellants in the name of Almighty God.

4. It was also brought into the notice of this Court, that the brother of the appellants Nos. 1 and 2 namely Farzand Ali was murdered by Muhammad Yaqoob and Muhammad Ayub sons of Sadiq eye‑witnesses in this case. In the aforesaid murder case as well, the parties have compromised on account of the intervention of the relatives of both sides.

5. After having examined the injured witnesses and the heirs of the deceased and also keeping in view the peculiar background of the case with regard to the murder of the brother of the appellants 1 and 2, I am convinced that the compromise between the parties is genuine.

6. The next crucial question is, what would be the effect of compromise in such like cases. Mr. Javed Shaukat, Advocate, the learned counsel for the State has taken pains to dig out the law, and has drawn my attention to the judgment reported as Khizar Hayat v. The State 1985 M L D 671. In the said judgment, on account of the compromise, the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellant was reduced to one already undergone. In the circumstances of this case, I am also inclined to adopt the said course. Accordingly, I direct that the sentence already undergone by the appellant on both the charges in this case would meet the ends of justice. It is further directed, that the appellant Khurshid Ali shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.

7. As far as the sentence of fine is concerned, in my view and in the peculiar circumstances of this case, the same on both the charges warrants interference by this Court and should be reduced. Accordingly, I direct that the appellant Khurshid Ali shall now pay a total amount of Rs. four thousand only as fine on both the charges instead of Rs. eleven thousand as ordered by the learned trial Court.

8. Conviction of Muhammad Irshad and Muhammad Ali appellants is maintained. However, in view of the compromise, their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them. They are on bail. They shall be discharge from their bail bonds. With these observations this appeal is disposed of.

H.B.T./K‑140/L Order accordingly.