1989 PLP 176 (SCMR)

‑‑‑Ss. 302 & 307‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 382‑B‑‑Death sentence‑‑Appeal against‑‑Compromise‑‑Effect of‑‑Appellant convicted under Ss. 302 & 307, P.P.C. sentenced to death and also 7 years' R.I. with fine on both charges‑‑Husband of deceased, the only surviving heir, entered into compromise with appellant and received compensation‑‑Appeal accepted and death sentence converted into imprisonment for life‑‑Sentences ordered to run concurrently and benefit of S. 382‑B, Cr.P.C. allowed. [Compromise‑‑Sentence]. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑-S.382‑B‑‑Penal Code (XLV of l8W), Ss. 302 & 307‑‑Sentence‑‑Awarding of‑ Benefit under S. 382‑B, Cr.P.C.‑‑Principle of consistency and equality‑‑Two convicted under S. 302/307/3‑1, P.P.C.‑‑One awarded imprisonment for life and other death under S. 302, P.P.C.‑‑Both sentenced to 7 years R.I. and fine under S. 307, P.P.C. and sentences ordered to run consecutively‑‑Leave to appeal granted on question of capital sentence only‑‑Death sentence converted into imprisonment for life, sentences ordered to run concurrently and benefit under S. 382‑B, Cr.P.C. also allowed‑‑On basis of consistency and equality, with consent of State Counsel, benefit in the matter of sentence also granted to other convict who deserved this benefit and of S. 382‑B, Cr.P.C. although his appeal was not formally before Supreme Court at that stage. Raja M. Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch Akhtar All, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant. M. Aslam Uns, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State. Date of hearing: 20th June, 1988. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑Abdur Rehman and Sher Khan were tried for attempting on the life of one Sabir who escaped unhurt but their shots fired at him hit and killed two unconcerned and innocent passengers of the bus, Mst. Maroof Sultan and Imtiaz. The shot fired by Abdur Rehman killed Mst. Maroof Sultan while shot fired by Sher Khan killed Imtiaz. The trial Court hell both of them guilty of the offences under sections 302/34, P.P.C. and 307/34, P.P.C. The sentence recorded in the case of Sher Khan was imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000 or in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.1. for two years. Abdur Rehman was sentenced to death and a fine of Rs. 20,000 or in default of payment of fine 2 years' R.I. Under Section 307/34, P.P.C. both were convicted and sentenced to seven years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5.000. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively. On appeal the High Court maintained the conviction and sentence and the death sentence was confirmed. Both the convicts sought leave to appeal from this Court but it was denied to Sher Khan and also to Abdur Rehman against conviction but the sentence awarded to the latter was permitted to be examined on the ground that Abdur Rehman appellant was under the influence and he acted at the behest of Sher Khan who had been given lesser punishment. At the hearing of the appeal we find that there is a compromise between the appellant and the heirs of Mst. Maroof Sultan. According to the compromise petition, Muhammad Nawai, her husband is the only surviving her lie has accepted the compromise and the receipt of the compensation. In view of such a compromise having been entered into and the sentence being only on one count, we would allow the appeal against the sentence and convert it into life imprisonment. Further as the transaction was one involving Sabir alone and incidentally and consequentially the other two deceased, the sentences under sections 307 and 302, P.P.C. are ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of section 382‑B is also allowed. The State Counsel has no objection to the extension of the benefit in the matter of sentence granted to Abdur Rehman to be extended to Sher Khan also, whose aPpeat is not at present before us formally but he deserves this benefit and of Section 382‑B on account of consistency and equality. We accept the appeal this extent, and make an order in respect of Sher Khan also.