ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Crl. Revision Appln.     No.25  of  2010.

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

1. For orderts on M.A.No.1000/10.

2. For Katcha Peshi/

09.6.2010

                        Mr. Abdul Rehman Bhutto, advocate for applicants.

                        Mr. Naimtullah Bhurgari, State Counsel.

                                                -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

                        By this order I am deciding the present Crl. Revision Appln. No.25/2010 filed by the applicants with the prayer to set aside the order dated 17.4.2010 passed by the learned VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana in Sessions Case No.61 of 1996, State versus Hamid Ali and others, whereby the learned Judge rejected the application under section 345(2), Cr.P.C.

                        Brief facts of the case are that the applicants on 24.2.1996 trespassed the house of complainant and committed the murder of complainant’s son Amir Jan. The FIR was registered under section 302, 460, 34, PPC and 337-H(2) at Police Station Warrah. After recording evidence both the applicants/accused were convicted under section 460, PPC for imprisonment for life and they were also sentenced for five years for lurking house trespass by night. After passing  judgment by the trial Court, the applicants/accused preferred appeal before this Court vide Crl. Appeal No.3/2003, the same was dismissed where-after appellants/applicants filed Jail Petition No.321/2008 before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and the same was dismissed on 23.10.2009. After the dismissal of the petition of the applicants by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, the parties patched-up  and filed joined application under section 345(2) and (6), Cr.P.C along with supporting affidavits of legal heirs of deceased and Proforma of the Honourable Supreme Court before the trial Court. By the orders dated 17.4.2010, the trial Court rejected the application under section 345(2), Cr.P.C filed on behalf of the applicants/convict and legal heirs of deceased. The learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana in his order dated 17.4.2010, has held that section 460, PPC under which the applicants/accused have been convicted is not compoundable, therefore, the application of the applicants has no substance.

                        I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned State Counsel and perused the record of the case.

                        Mr. Abdul Rehman Bhutto advocate for applicants submits that the application has been filed before the trial Court on humanitarian grounds as the parties have patched up and the legal heirs of deceased have forgotten the applicants/accused in the name of Almighty Allah.

                        Mr. Naimtullah Bhurgari, learned State Counsel opposed the present revision application on the ground that since the offence is not compoundable.

                        The offences which can be compounded have been specified in section 345, Cr.P.C. Section 460 of PPC has not been specified in section 345, Cr.P.C and therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly not granted permission to compound the offence to the parties. In my humble view, while dismissing the application of the applicants no illegality or irregularity has been done by the trial Court. I, therefore, reject the present Criminal Revision Application filed by the applicants.

Judge