Ghulam Nabi & Others (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD

Crl. Appeal No.S-73 of 2014.

Date of hearing Order with signature of Judge

1.For hearing of M.A.No.1947/2021 (345(2) Cr.PC).

2.For hearing of M.A.No.1948/2021(345(6)Cr.PC).

Mr. Anawar A. Khan, Advocate for the appellants.

Ms. Sana Memon, A.P.G for the State.

Mr. Sartar Iqbal Panhwar, advocate for complainant.

1.Granted.

2.It is alleged the appellants with rest of the culprits have caused hatchet blows to PWs Rasool Bux, Mohammad Soomar, Arab and Shahmir with intention to commit their murder, they were booked and reported accordingly, they denied the charge, the prosecution in order to prove it examined complainant Gulzar Ahmed and his witnesses and then closed the side. The appellants in their statements recorded u/s 342 Cr.P.C denied the prosecution’s allegation by pleading innocence. On conclusion of the trial, they were convicted and sentenced to various terms by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Badin vide his judgment dated 31st May, 2014, which is impugned by the appellants before this Court.

During course of hearing of instant Criminal Appeal, the parties compounded the offence and to materialize such compromise they filed compromise application. Such application is supported by the affidavits of complainant Gulzar Ahmed and injured/PWs Rasool Bux, Mohammad Soomar, Arab and Shahmir, whereby they have recorded no objections

to acquittal of the appellant by way of compromise by stating therein that they have pardoned the appellants in name of Almighty Allah without fear by waiving their right of Qisas and Diyat.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the parties have entered into compromise at the instance of their nekmards, same to be accepted in the best interest of peace and brotherhood to be prevailed between the parties.

The learned A.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have recorded no objection to acceptance of the compromise between the parties.

I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

The offence is compoundable one. The parties have entered into compromise, on intervention of their nekmards, which appears to be true and voluntarily. In these circumstances, the compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. Consequently, the appellants are acquitted of the offence u/s 345(6) Cr.P.C, for which they have been charged, tried and convicted by learned trial court. They are present in Court on bail and their bail bonds are cancelled and surety is discharged.

The instant appeal is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE

Ahmed/Pa,