' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.--- Appellant Muhammad Latif was tried under section 302, read with section 109, P.P.C. In case F.I.R. No,169, dated 31-3-1998, registered with Police Station Dijkot, Faisalabad for on the same day at about 7 p.m. At the abetment of his father Muhammad Hanif, in Chak No,248/RB, falling within the jurisdiction of aforesaid police station committing the Qatl-i- Amd of deceased Allah Ditta, the father of Umer Hayat complainant (P.W.5).
2. He on the conclusion of the trial was found guilty of the charge. Malik Muhammad Afzal, learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, vide his judgment rendered on 10-4-2000 had convicted him under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced him to death as Tazir subject to confirmation by this Court. He was also ordered to pay Rs,1, 00,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. And in case of default to suffer 6 months' S.I.
' He has brought the impugned judgment under attack by way of the above-mentioned appeal (No,559 of 2000).
3. The learned trial Court has submitted Murder Reference mentioned above (No,311 of 2000) to this Court for confirmation of his sentence of death as required under section 374, Cr.P.C.
4. As both these matters have arisen out of one and the same case, hence are being disposed of by this single judgment.
5. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of these matters are that the said case has been registered on the statement Exh.P.B. Of Umer Hayat complainant.
6. He has alleged therein that on 31-3-1998 at evening time Ch. Ahmad Hussain, Muhammad Sadiq and others had come to his father Allah Ditta and grandfather Lal Din to offer their felicitations on his passing 9th class. At about 7 p.m. Muhammad Latif, who is their relative had come to them and asked his father that his father Muhammad Hanif was calling him at the Brick-Kiln. He along with Ch. Ahmad Hussain and Muhammad Sadiq and father Allah Ditta went towards the Brick-Kiln. At a distance of about 2 acres from the village, Muhammad Latif, who was having woollen Chaddar on him and licensed Rifle 8 mm of his father, said to his father Allah Ditta that he will teach him lesson for not giving the hand of his sister to him. He with the same had fired at him, which hit on his left flank and it went through and through. His father fell on the ground. He in that condition fired another shot at him, which hit on the front side of his belly. They tried to apprehend him but pointed the rifle towards them and said that whosoever came near would be killed and he then fled away from the scene. They took care of his father Allah Ditta but he stood expired due to his injuries.
7. The motive behind the occurrence is that about 2 months ago Muhammad Hanif, the father of the accused Muhammad Latif had demanded the hand of his sister from his father for the latter but his father had refused him the same due to his bad reputation. Muhammad Hanif, the father of the accused had felt it and he extended threats of dire consequences to his father. He had sent Muhammad Latif by giving him licensed .8 mm rifle to murder his father.
8. The appellant after due investigation was challaned to the Court. He was formally charged under section 302, read with section 109, P.P.C. He pleaded not guilty.
9. The prosecution at his trial produced its 10 witnesses. They were Akhlaq Hussain, Head Constable (P.W.1), Zulfiqar, Constable (P.W.2), Manzoor Hussain (P.W.3), Dr. Muhammad Anwar (P.W.4), Umer Hayat (P.W.5), Ahmed Hussain (P.W.6), Akhtar Ali, Constable (P.W.7), Muhammad Riaz, Patwari (P.W.8), Muhammad Younas, S.-I. (P.W.9) and Younis Ali, A.S.-I. (P.W.10).
10. The report of the Chemical Examiner Exh.P.L. Was tendered in the evidence.
11. The appellant in his examination under section 342, Cr.P.C. Has denied the allegation appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded as under:- "About five days before the occurrence, the deceased Allah Ditta had committed unnatural act with me in the watercourse in which occurrence took place and I did not talk about this fact the deceased again caught hold of me for the above purpose and on the pretext of my sickness I got myself released from the deceased. On the evening of occurrence, I had gone armed with rifle to save myself from the assault of deceased Allah Ditta Shortly before the occurrence the deceased caught me and put Japha to satisfy his unnatural lust and thereupon I fired shots from the rifle at the deceased."
' He however, did not lead evidence in defence and also not deposed on oath in disproof of the allegation appearing against him in the prosecution evidence.
12. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the charge against him stood proved on the record. It so, has convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above.
13. He although through his appeal has challenged his conviction and sentence but his learned counsel has frankly submitted before us that he does not assail his conviction but only pray for reduction in his sentence as he was a young lad of about 17/18 years age at the time of occurrence.
14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the request for reduction in his sentence saying that he has committed cold-blooded murder of the deceased and so deserved no leniency.
15. We have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides and record perused.
16. As stated above that the appellant's side has not assailed his conviction before us and only prayed for reduction in his sentence on the above ground. We earnestly feel that it was a right approach towards the matter as the two eye-witnesses namely Umer Hayat (P.W.5) and Ahmed Hussain (P.W.6) have fully implicated him with the charge against him. They were unanimous that he on the above said date, time A and place had fired two rifle shots at the deceased, who died instantaneously due to the same. There has been found no inconsistency at all in between them on any major detail of the incident. They were independent persons, particularly Ahmad Hussain. Their testimony has inspired confidence.
17. It is also interesting to note here that the appellant himself has admitted in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. That he fired two shots with rifle at the deceased. Although he has taken above plea that the deceased wanted to commit sodomy upon him but there is absolutely no substance available on the record in support of the same. He even did not produce any evidence to substantiate such version. He also did not depose on oath in respect of the same. It was therefore, mere a bald and bare assertion without any proof. The same therefore, was liable to rejection and it was rightly .Rejected. The eye-witnesses were reliable and so they were rightly relied upon.
18. The medical evidence has furnished complete support/ corroboration to the ocular testimony.
Doctor Muhammad Anwar (PW..4) had found the following injuries on the dead body of the deceased.On autopsy:--
(1) A fire-arm entrance wound 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. Hole in an area of 1 c.m. x 2 c.m., laceration with blackening and inverted margins on the back of lateral side of left chest, 10 c.m. From the midline x between 7th and 8th ribs space.
(2) A fire-arm exit wound 4 c.m. x 3 c.m. On the right lateral side of chest 14 c.m. Vertically down the right axial and 7th and 8th ribs were fractured upto right axilla including 7th and 8th ribs through and through.
(3) A fire-arm entrance wound 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. On the right of abdomen, 4 c.m. From midline just below the right costal margin. The edges were inverted.
(4) A fire-arm exit wound 1-1/4 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m. On right of back of abdomen vertebra edges were everted.
' According to him injuries Nos.1 and 3 individually as well collectively were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. These were caused by fire-arm and ante-mortem. The probable time between these injuries and the death was immediate and between death and postmortem about 19 hours. He proved his report Exh.P.D. To be in his hand signed by him.
19. The testimony of the doctor thus, was in complete harmony to the ocular account. There had been not the least contradiction in any manner between the two. The same, therefore, was rightly believed as supportive to the ocular account.
20. The motive part of the prosecution story has been furnished by P.W.5 Umer Hayat. He has narrated the above factum of the demand of the hand of his sister for the appellant and refusal of the same by his E father. He has appeared to be reliable witness. The story of the motive furnished by him thus, was also worthy of belief. The same was further supportive circumstance to the ocular testimony.
21. These pieces of the evidence of the prosecution on the record have established the guilt of the appellant on the record beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. He, therefore, was rightly convicted. We maintain his conviction.
22. As regards the question of sentence to him we do not find the proof of his exact age on the record. It is, therefore, not safe to hold that he in fact was of the above given age at the time of the occurrence.
23. However, we find that it is the own stance of the complainant in F.I.R. Exh.P.B. That his father Muhammad Hanif had sent him to murder the deceased by giving him his own licensed .8 mm rifle.
So, according to the own version of the complainant, he has acted under the command of his father, which constitutes circumstances of mitigation in the award of lesser sentence to him than the death. We therefore, reduce his sentence to imprisonment for life from death. He, however, shall pay the compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased as directed by the learned trial Court. He shall be given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
24. With the above reduction in his sentence, we dismiss his appeal. The Murder Reference is answered in the negative. The death awarded to him is not confirmed. Sentence reduced.