ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Crl.Jail Appeal No.S-38 of 2018.
|
Date of hearing |
Order with signature of Judge |
1. For hearing of M.A.No.1151/2020 (345(4) Cr.PC).
2. For hearing of M.A.No.1149/2020 (345(6) Cr.PC).
3. For hearing of M.A.No.1148/2020 (345(2) Cr.PC).
4. For hearing of main case.
31.08.2020
Makhdoom Syed Tahir Abbas Shah, Advocate for the appellant. Complainant and legal heirs of deceased in person
Mr. Muhammad Noonari, D.P.G for the State.
~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~
Irshad Ali Shah-J; It is alleged that the appellant with rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, by committing trespass into house of complainant Mst.Sanam, committed Qatl-e-Amd of her mother Mst.Zaibul, by causing her fire shot injuries, for that he and others were booked and reported upon by the police.
At trial, the appellant and co-accused Ahsan, Muhammad Khan and Sikandar Ali did not plead guilty to the charge and the prosecution to prove it, examined in all nine witnesses and then closed the side.
On conclusion of the trial, co-accused as are named above were acquitted while the appellant was found guilty and then for an offence punishable under section 302 (b) PPC was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, as compensation and in case of his failure to make payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months with benefit of section 382-B Cr.PC, by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, vide his judgment dated 30.03.2018, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by filing an appeal.
During course of hearing of instant appeal, the appellant after due permission of the Court filed applications for permission to compound the offence with the complainant party and for his acquittal by way of compromise.
On enquiry the learned trial Court reported that deceased Mst.Zaibul was survived by the following legal heirs;
|
Sr.No. |
Name of legal heir |
Relationship with deceased |
Age |
|
01. |
Muhammad Saleem |
Son |
33 years |
|
02. |
Waseem Ali |
Son |
22 years |
|
03. |
Mst.Sanam |
Daughter |
25 years |
|
04. |
Mst.Sania |
Daughter |
19 years |
|
05. |
Mst.Soonh |
Daughter |
18 years |
|
06. |
Baby Sindhu |
Daughter |
13 years |
|
07. |
Mst.Basran |
Mother |
80 years |
On query made by this Court one after other, the complainant and adult legal heirs of the deceased were fair enough to admit that they have compounded the offence with the appellant on the intervention of their Nekmards and they have pardoned him by waiving their right of “Qisas” and “Diyat” against the appellant.
Baby Sindhu, the minor legal heir of the deceased through her “Wali” (Waseem Ali) was fair enough to say that she has waived the right of “Qisas” against the appellant while “Diyat” money as per her share which comes to Rs.290,000/-, the appellant has deposited on her behalf with the Accountant of this Court.
Whatever is stated by the complainant, legal heirs of the deceased and “Wali” of minor finds support from their affidavits, which they have already filed alongwith the instant applications.
It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the parties have compounded the offence on intervention of their Nekmards, without fear or favour and it is true and voluntarily. By contending so, he sought for acquittal of the appellant by way of compromise.
Learned D.P.G for the State has recorded no objection to the acquittal of the appellant by way of compromise.
I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
The compromise which is arrived at between the parties is appearing to be true and voluntarily, which apparently has been affected by the parties on at the intervention of their Nekmards, it is without coercion or compulsion, it has not been objected by any one. It is therefore, accepted in the best interest of the peace and brotherhood to be prevailed between the parties.
Consequently, the appellant is acquitted of the offence for which he was charged, tried and conviction by learned trial Court, in terms of compromise by resorting to provision of section 345(6) Cr.PC. He shall be released forthwith, if is not required in any other custody case.
Office is directed to invest “Diyat” money, which is deposited on behalf of minor baby Sindhu, in some profitable scheme and the same to be encashed by her together with profit, if any, on attaining the majority, subject to order of the Court.
The instant appeal is disposed of accordingly together with the listed applications.
J U D G E
*