' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This judgment shall dispose of Murder Reference No,431/2000, Criminal Appeal No,329/2000 (Ahmad Din and another v. The State) and Criminal Appeal No,336/2000 (Nadeem alias Deema. v. The State) as they arise out of the same judgment dated 29-6-2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawtani whereby appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:--
(i) Appellant Ahmad Din to death under section 302(B) P.P.C. With a compensation of Rs,50,000 under section 544-A Cr.P.C. To be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased in default whereof to further undergo six months' RI.
(ii) Appellant Nisar Ahmad to life imprisonment under section 302(b)/34 P.P.C. With a compensation of Rs,50,000 under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased in default whereof to further undergo six months' RI
(iii) Appellant Nadeem Deema under section 337-A (ii) P.P.C. To three years' R.I. With an amount of Rs,15,000 as Arsh to be paid to injured Tariq in default whereof to remain in Jail as six months' S.-I.
(iv) Accused Din Muhammad Suleman and Riasat were, however, acquitted from the case and no appeal against their acquittal was either filed by the State or the complainant.
2. Brief facts of the case as disclosed by the complainant Muhammad Tariq (P.W.3), are that on the fateful day and time he, his brother Tahir (given up) and sister Khalida Perveen (P.W.4) were present in their house, they were called in the strreet by their uncle Khalid (given up P.W.) saying that his (complainant's) father was being given beating by the Qureshies, complainant picked up .7 mm rifle of his father and came out in the street along with his above said brother and sister in order to save the life of their father and saw that Nisar Ahmad appellant raised a Lalkara for teaching a lesson to Abdul Haq deceased for disgracing whereafter he inflicted a sota blow on the back of Abdul Haq, Abdul Haq tried to run away but Din Muhammad and Riasat griped him from his arms and Ahmad Din appellant inflicted a Chhurri blow on the left side of Abdul Haq's chest, Riasat snatched rifle from the complainant when he stepped forward to save the life of his father Abdul Haq and Nadeem gave a sota blow upon his head, Khalida Perveen was also inflicted a number of sota blows on her person when she came forward to save her father and all the accused, thereafter decamped from the spot on having seen the people gathered at the spot. Abdul Haq deceased was being shifted to the hospital but he succumbed to the injuries on the way. The motive behind the occurrence was a quarrel between Abdul Haq deceased and Nisar Ahmad appellant in the morning of the day of occurrence.
3. The investigation of the case was carried out by the police and after having completed legal formalities the accused were sent up for trial before the learned trial Court where the prosecution, in order to prove its case produced eleven prosecution witnesses whereas the accused in their statements recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C. Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of both the appeals contended that there are two eye-witnesses of the case, namely, Muhammad Tariq (P.W.3) who is real son of the deceased Abdul Haq and Mst. Khalida Perveen (P.W.4) who is also the real daughter of the said deceased Abdul Haq that the above Khalida Perveen has been disbelieved by the learned trial Court; that there are material contradictions amongst the statements of both the above eye-witnesses; that on the same set of evidence three co-accused have already been acquitted from the case and neither the State nor the complainant have filed appeal against their acquittal; that the occurrence had taken place in the street and no immediate cause of the occurrence was mentioned; that appellant Ahmed Din is attributed a single Chhurri blow which was not repeated by him; that no motive is attributed to Ahmad Din appellant and at least it is not a case of capital punishment; that appellant Nisar Ahmad is attributed a sota blow on the back of the deceased which was not repeated and ends of justice would be met if his sentence is treated to have undergone whereas the appellant Nadeem has served out his sentence.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the appellants are named in the F.I.R. With specific roles especially appellants Ahmad Din and Nisar are attributed injuries on the person of the deceased which were fatal; that both the eye-witnesses, namely, P.W.3 and P.W.4 have fully supported the prosecution case; that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants to the hilt and that the appeals filed by the appellants against the captioned conviction and sentences are liable to be dismissed by this Court.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a great length,i have given anxious consideration to their submissions made before this Court and have also gone through the record with their able assistance.
7. In all there were six accused persons in this case. There is one deceased, namely, Abdul Haq and two injured persons, namely, Tariq and Khalida Perveen who appeared before the learned trial Court as P.W.3 and P.W.4. Accused Din Muhammad, Muhammad suleman and Riasat were, however, acquitted from the case and no appeal against their acquittal was either filed by the State or the complainant. As far as appellant Nadeem alias Deema in Criminal Appeal No, 336/2000 is concerned, he has undergone the entire sentence, so, his appeal has become infructuous and is disposed of as such.
8. As far as the case of Ahmad Din appellant is concerned, he is attributed a single Chhurri blow on the person of the deceased which proved fatal. The case against him was proved by the prosecution to the hilt but it is pertinent to mention here that he is also injured person in this case.
C.W.1 Dr. Ghulam Sarwar appeared before the learned trial Court to corroborate the presence of injuries on the person of the said appellant which are four in number. Although his medical examination was conducted after thirteen days of the occurrence but the facts remains that the prosecution suppressed his injuries.
9. There is yet another important aspect of the case. Appellant Ahmad Din is attributed a single Chhurri blow on the person of the deceased which was not repeated by him coupled with the fact that no motive is attributed to the said appellant.
10. The another important factor is that the occurrence in question had taken place outside the house of the complainant party and immediate cause of occurrence is not coming forth. The above extenuating circumstances would go in favour of appellant Ahmad Din. Keeping in view of the above factors in consideration we are of the considered view that it is not a case of capital punishment to the extent of the said appellant Ahmad Din which is also in line with the verdicts of the superior Courts of the country including the apex Court of Pakistan. Resultantly, the sentence of death awarded to Ahmad Din appellant is converted into imprisonment for life. He is also given benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. The amount of compensation and imprisonment in default whereof shall remain the same only with the modification that "six months R.I." in default of amount of compensation shall be treated as "six months S.I." because "R.I." is not provided in the provision of section 544-A Cr.P.C. His sentence of death is not confirmed and this Murder Reference is answered in the negative.
11. Now this Court would like to discuss the case of Nisar Ahmad appellant. Although the prosecution has proved its case against this appellant yet it is pertinent to mention here that he is attributed a sota blow on the back of the deceased which was not repeated by him. The injury attributed to him was simple in nature and was not fatal. He was arrested on 21-4-1998 and is behind the bars since then. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant qua his sentence appears to be reasonable. So, while converting his conviction and sentence from section 302(b) P.P.C. To section 302(c) P.P.C., the sentence already served by him is being treated to have already undergone. So far as amount of compensation awarded to him under section 544-A Cr.P.C. Is concerned, the same is also reduced from Rs,50,000 to Rs,25,000 and imprisonment in default of the same would be three months S.-I. Criminal Appeal No,329/2000 is disposed of with the above modifications in the quantum of sentences of both the appellants in the said appeal.