2017 P Cr (PLP)

SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.

The petitioners, Muhammad Zubair, Muhammad Ikram, Muhammad Imran and Abdul Jabbar were held guilty under sections 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-F(vi) and 337-L(2), P.P.C., read with section 149, P.P.C. by the learned Judicial Magistrate section-30, Toba Tek Singh, vide judgment dated 29.9.2010 and awarded various terms of imprisonment, beside, payment of Daman in different amounts, on conclusion of their trial in case-FIR No.228/2007, dated 30.5.2007, under sections 337-F(vi), 337-F(v), 337-F(i), 337-L(2), 148, 149, P.P.C., registered at police station Rajana, district Toba Tek Singh. They filed an appeal against the above-said judgment, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh on 9.2.2011. Two of their co-accused, namely, Waseem Nisar and Muhammad Ashfaq were also identically convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court through the afore-referred judgment, but they were acquitted of the charge by the learned appellate court, vide the same judgment, noted as above.

2. Muhammad Rafi (P.W.1) is the complainant of case-FIR No.228/2007 (supra/Exh.PI), who alleged therein that he along with his maternal nephew Muhammad Azam (P.W.2) and one Muhammad Ahsan (P.W.3) moved to their agricultural land at 7.30 a.m. on 30.5.2007; when they reached near Killa No.8, square No.17, they were ambushed by Muhammad Akram (petitioner) armed with hatchet, Muhammad 1mran (petitioner) armed with Danda. Muhammad Zubair (petitioner) armed with hatchet, Abdul Jabbar (petitioner) armed with Kassi, Muhammad Ashfaq (since acquitted) armed with Sota, Waseem Nisar (since acquitted), armed with iron rod and Muhammad Zia, an army-man, still to be arrested, armed with Sota, who severely tortured them and inflicted multiple injuries on various parts of their bodies; the occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Imran. who did not appear at trial. The motive behind the occurrence pertained to a previous clash between the parties, which occurred a few days before.

3. After necessary investigation, a report under section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted before the learned trial court, which took cognizance of the matter, indicted the petitioners and their acquitted co-accused, recorded evidence of the parties, including statements of the petitioners under section 342, Cr.P.C. and decided the case in terms, as mentioned in the opening paragraph hereof. An appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh vide judgment dated 9.2.2011. Hence, the instant petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that compromise has been effected between the parties and injured witnesses, Muhammad Rafi (complainant/P.W.1), Muhammad Azam (P.W.2) and Muhammad Ahsan (P.W.3) have rendered separate statements accordingly before the learned Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh on 18.5.2013 by contending that they had no objection, if Muhammad Zubair, Muhammad Ikram, Abdul Jabbar and Muhammad Imran (petitioners) were acquitted of the charge on the basis of compromise and released from jail. He maintained that a report to this effect has already been submitted by the learned Sessions Judge before this court.

5. Learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor didn't find himself in a position to oppose the contentions of the petitioner learned counsel as compromise between the parties had been arrived at of their free will and accord.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the available record, it is observed that the petitioners' sentence was suspended by this court on 14.7.2011, whereafter they were released on bail from the prison. The injured witnesses, Muhammad Rafi (complainant/P.W.1), Muhammad Azam (P.W.2) and Muhammad Ahsan (P.W.3) had stated even then to have compounded the offence and forgiven the petitioners/convicts in the name of the Almighty and showed no objection if they were released on bail. All the petitioners except Muhammad Imran, who has gone to Saudi Arabia are present on bail. The present position of Muhammad Imran being in Saudi Arabia has repeatedly been reported by Muhammad Shafique ASI and Shamshad Ali ASI, while executing a composite notice for 10.3.2016 and a non-bailable warrant of arrest for 5.4.2016 (today). He was supposed to remain present before the court till decision of this revision petition, but he went abroad, which is in violation to the order of suspension of his sentence and grant of resultant bail to him. It may not, however, be altogether ruled out that he felt encouraged by the factum of compromise and took the decision of going abroad for earning the livelihood. It may have rung in his mind that compromise with the injured had eased a bit the compulsion of remaining consistently present before the court till final adjudication of this petition. It might have been so, that financial constraints stirred-up an urge within himself to go abroad for a bright future and the forgiveness, accorded to him by the injured witnesses added fuel to the propped up ambition. So, his absence may be looked at leniently and excused in peculiar backdrop of this case. It may not be something unique to observe that a runaway convict might be acquitted of the charge on acceptance of his appeal, if he was found entitled thereto on merits of the case. Reliance in this regard may be had on Muhammad Aslam and 5 others v. The State (1972 SCMR 194). The situation in the instant case is, however, far better, as compromise between the petitioners and the injured prosecution witnesses has brought an end to their years old rivalry and inculcated a hope within themselves to live peacefully in future. The absence of the absentee-petitioner is, thus, excused.

7. It is found from the record that three persons, Muhammad Rafi (complainant/P.W.1), Muhammad Azam (P.W.2) and Muhammad Ahsan (P.W.3) received injuries during the occurrence at the hands of the petitioners, wherefore they were convicted/sentenced by the learned trial court and doubly stamped guilty by the learned appellate court, the detail in this regard may be found precedingly. It is, however, a forgotten circumstance now, as parties have compounded the offence and decided to live peacefully in the days ahead. The injured witnesses firstly made statements of compromise before this court, which resulted in suspension of sentence of the petitioners and their release from the jail, vide order dated 14.7.2011. When it came to the titled petition itself, the factum of compromise was agitated again by the petitioners through Crl. Misc. No.1373-M/2013, whereon learned Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh was assigned with the task of recording statements of the injured witnesses and submitting a report in relation thereto by confirming, if the compromise was genuine and effected voluntarily. The learned sessions judge recorded them all and submitted a report to the said effect by verifying the genuineness and voluntariness of the compromise. The injured witnesses have categorically contended in their separately recorded statements that they had effected compromise with the accused/convicts and forgiven them in the name of the Almighty, without receiving any compensation, Daman or Arsh from them and by naming the four (petitioners), they expressed a desire that they might be acquitted of the charge and released from the jail. The requisite report submitted by the learned sessions judge is complete in all respects and entailed every ingredient of persuasiveness. The offences, the petitioners have been convicted/sentenced for, are compoundable with the consent of the court, as envisaged by section 345(2), Cr.P.C. The injured witnesses are the relevant persons, as incorporated in the Third Column of the Table, a constituent of the noted provisions of the Code, by whom an offence might be compounded, as mentioned therein. No other person is needed to complete the process of compromise herein, hence, assented to.

8. Therefore, this revision petition along with ancillary miscellaneous application (Crl. Misc. No.1373-M/2013) is accepted at the cost of the impugned judgments passed by the learned lower courts and all the petitioners are acquitted of the charge on the basis of compromise. They are on bail, for, their sentence had been suspended by this court on 14.7.2011. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. SL/M-150/L Order accordingly.