1992 P Cr (PLP)

SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J.‑‑‑ Muhammad Yusuf, Idrees and Muhammad Ramzan sons of Muhammad Siddiq were murdered (luring the night between 23rd and 24th of November, 1987 beneath of Chappar at the tube‑well of their uncle in the area of Chak No.721 at a distance (if 5 miles from Police Station Sadar Kamalia, District Toba Tek Singh. Muhammad Suleman paternal‑uncle of the deceased real brother of their father lodged F.I.R. at 9‑30 a.m. on 24‑11‑1987, alleging that his nephews had been murdered by Muhammad Saleem, Yusuf (sons of Muhammad Ismail), Yusuf (son of Ali Muhammad) Nazir and Dilshad. During investigation the police came to the conclusion that the accused mentioned in the F.I.R. had not committed the murders. They were got discharged. Instead, Muhammad Suleman complainant, his brother Rehmat Ullah, Abdus Salam son of Rehmat Ullah and Muhammad Hussain a first cousin of Suleman and Rehmat Ullah, were found to have committed the murders. They were arrested and challaned. They were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh.

2. Learned trial Judge vide judgment, dated 12‑6‑1991 convicted all of them under section 302/34, P.P.C. on three counts and sentenced each of them to death plus to pay a fine of Rs.2 lacs each, in default whereof to undergo R.I. for 10 years on each count. They were also convicted under section 304/34, P.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years each plus to pay a fine of Rs.20,000 each in default whereof to undergo R.I. for 6 months each. Muhammad Suleman was also held guilty under section 411, P:P.C. and convicted thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years plus to pay a fine of Rs.20,000 in default whereof to suffer R.I. for 6 months. 001

3. During the pendency of appeal filed by the convicts and the reference made by learned trial Judge for confirmation of death sentences a petition was moved on behalf of the appellants that Muhammad Siddiq father of the three deceased had compromised with them and had forgiven them in the name of Allah (MUAF KER DIYA). Prayer was made that they may be acquitted on that account. During the pendency of that petition, another petition was moved wherein it was, prayed that Mst. Shakuran wife of Muhammad Siddiq and mother of the deceased had also compromised with them and forgiven them in the name of Allah (MUAF KER DIYA). It was prayed that since the only heirs of the deceased i.e. their parents, had forgiven the appellants in the name of Allah, they may be acquitted.

4. Muhammad Siddiq and Mst. Shakuran Bibi appeared before the Court. They were identified by Qazi Muhammad Saleem, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants. They made statements on oath and claimed to be the parents of the deceased. They stated. that none of the deceased was married and all of them had left behind them, being the parents as the only sirs. They affirmed that they had compromised with the appellants who were their close relatives and had forgiven them in the name of Allah.

5. As the appeal pertains to the year 1991, the record was not printed. However, taking into view the fact that the parties had compromised, we allowed exemption of the printing of the record and took up the appeal on the record available.

6. Muhammad Suleman and Rehmat Ullah appellants are real brothers of Muhammad Siddiq father of the three deceased. Abdus Salam is nephew of Muhammad Siddiq being son of Rehmat Ullah while Muhammad Hussain alias Mamun is first cousin of Muhammad Siddiq, being son of his maternal uncle. The compromise entered into between the parties seems to be genuine. There is nothing on record to hold that the compromise, was the result of any misconception or coercion. As all the deceased were unmarried, the parents of the deceased are their only legal heirs. It is also worth mentioning that in the F.I.R. some other persons were named as accused and the appellants were found guilty by the police during the investigation and were proceeded against on that basis. It was never the case of the heirs of the deceased that the appellants were muderers of their sons. There is no material warranting any action under section 311, P.P.C. The appeal is, therefore, allowed by way of acceptance of compromise. The appellants shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Death sentence is not confirmed. H.B.T./M‑240/L Appeal allowed.