2003 P Cr (PLP)

5. On the conclusion of the prosecution evidence accused- appellants were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. In their above statements the accused persons denied the charge and pleaded innocence. They, however, failed to lead any evidence in their defence or to appear as their own witnesses in terms of section 340(2), Cr.P.C.

6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties the learned trial Court convicted the appellants and sentenced them to the punishments as mentioned in the opening para. hereof.

7. We have heard Malik Rab Nawaz Noon and Mr. Imdad Hussain, Additional Advocates for the appellants, Mr. M. Sharif Janjua, Advocate, learned counsel for the State and have also perused the entire record with their assistance.

8. It may be pointed out here that when the case was taken up for hearing on 6‑2‑2002, the learned counsel for the appellant Khan Said stated that since the matter has been compromised between the parties and the complainant Habib‑ur‑Rehman has forgiven the appellants and he is no more interested in their prosecution, therefore, the compromise produced in the Court, by the parties may be accepted. Mst. Razia, the victim, was also present at that juncture, she also made the similar request but prayed for an adjournment to place on record the relevant documents. The case, therefore, was adjourned.

9. Today, Criminal Miscellaneous No.35/I of 2002, acceptance of the compromise, has been filed, Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, Advocate learned counsel for appellant Khan Said while reiterating his submission made earlier contended that since in pursuance of the compromise arrived at by the parties, Mst. Razia has also forgiven the appellants and an affidavit sworn by her to the above effect too has been filed alongwith the application in question, therefore, the compromise may be accepted and the sentences inflicted on the accused persons may be reduced substantially for better future relations of the parties. He added that though the offences under which the accused persons have been convicted are not compoundable yet in view of the compromise, the sentences recorded against the appellants can be reduced. Reliance has been placed on the following reported judgments:‑‑ (i) Allah Ditta v. The State 1988 SCMR 1489 "In which case the appellant was convicted under section 10(3) of 'the Ordinance and sentenced to seven years' R.I. with twenty stripes alongwith a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for six months. In view of the compromise arrived at by the parties and the tact that the complainant party had forgiven the appellant and some compensation was also paid, the sentence of imprisonment inflicted on the appellant was reduced to the minimum prescribed under the law i.e. four years' R.I. The sentences of fine and stripes, were however, set aside." (ii) Pervez Iqbal v. The State PLD 1985 FSC 134 "In which case the appellant was convicted on three counts i.e. under section 11 of the Ordinance, under section 506, P.P.C. and section 342, P.P.C. and was awarded life imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for six months, three years' R.I. and one year's R.I. respectively. During pendency of the appeal, the matter was compromised by the parties and it was pleaded that since the complainant had forgiven the accused and his case did not fall within the ambit of section 11 of the Ordinance but was covered by section 365, P.P.C., therefore, the sentence inflicted on him may be reduced. The request was acceded to and the sentence of imprisonment inflicted on the appellant was reduced to two years' R.I. under section 365, P.P.C. However, it was ordered that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000 as fine in case of default in payment of fine or would suffer R.I. for two years. Sentences recorded against him under section 506 as well as 342, P.P.C. were also reduced to two years' R.I. and it was further ordered that all the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. (iii) Ghulam Rasool and another v. The State 1999 MLD 3085 "In which case a Single Bench of this Court in view of the compromise arrived at by the parties, the sentence of two years' R.I. inflicted on the appellant under section 354, P.P.C. was reduced to that of already undergone."

10. Mr. M. Sharif Janjua, Advocate learned counsel for the State has confirmed that the complainant has forgiven the appellants. Mst. Razia the victim is also present in Court, she states that since she has forgiven the appellants and has compromised the matter, therefore, the sentences recorded against the appellants may be reduced, for better future relations of the parties. Learned counsel for the State, in view of the compromise and the statement of the victim has expressed his no objection to reduction in the sentences of the appellants:

11. Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties facts of the case and better future relations of the parties, we while following the ratio decidendi of the afore-quoted reported judgments, and maintaining convictions of the appellants, are inclined to reduce the sentences recorded against them as under:‑‑ (i) The sentence of imprisonment recorded against appellant Khan Said under section 10(3) of the Ordinance read with section 149, P.P.C. is reduced from fifteen years' R.I. to that of four years' R. I. (ii) The sentences of imprisonments inflicted on appellant Khan Said as well as other appellants namely Lalazada, Noor Muhammad and Jehanzeb under section 11 of the Ordinance read with section 149, P.P.C. are reduced from life imprisonment to that of already undergone. The sentences of fine of Rs.10,000 inflicted on each, of the above named appellants under section 11 of the Ordinance, are also reduced to Rs.5,000 each in default whereof they shall undergo S.I. for three months each. (iii) Sentences of stripes inflicted on the appellants on both counts i.e. section 10(3) as well as 11 of the Ordinance are set aside under the Abolition of Punishment of Whipping Act, 1996. Benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. granted by the learned trial Court shall remain intact. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. With the above modifications in the sentences of imprisonment as well as of whipping and fine both these appeals are hereby dismissed. Criminal Miscellaneous Applications Nos.35/1 of 2002 and 76/1 of 2002, for acceptance of the compromise, are also disposed of in the above terms. N.H.Q./96/FSC Sentences reduced.