1. ' JEHANZAIB RAHIM, J.--- This appeal is directed against he judgment dated 6-2-2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Abbottabad/Camp Court, Hairpur whereby appellant Arif son of Shah Wali was convicted under (i) section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life and shall pay an amount of Rs,2,00,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default thereof to Suffer further six months' simple imprisonment under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. This amount shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue; (ii) section 324, P.P.C. And sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs,5000 or in default of payment of fine to suffer further three months simple imprisonment and (iii) section 337-F(iv), P.P.C. And sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay Daman amounting to Rs,15,000 to the injured Mutawali Khan. In case of failure to pay Daman, he may be kept in jail as sentenced to simple imprisonment till its recovery.
2. The sentences on all the counts shall run concurrently. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to the appellant.
3. ' Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Mutawali Khan, on 7-4-1999 at 1215 hours, in injured condition brought the dead body of Wasim Gul with the help of his son Haider Zaman to the Emergency Ward of,,Civil Hospital, Haripur and reported to Khavvaj Muhammad IHC that his granddaughter, Mst. Ume Tayyaba and her husband Wasim Gul came from Rawalpindi in the morning to the house of his son Haider Zaman. Mst. Ume Tayyaba and her husband Wasim Gul were abused and insulted by the appellant, his nephew and as a result they both came and complained to him and Haider Zaman. On this, he along with Haider Zaman, Mst. Ume Tayyaba and Wasim 'Gul went to the house of appellant's brother, Irshad for making a complaint "Gilla".
4. They, on their way back, reached in the street near the house of Munshi Anwar Din, where appellant duly armed with .30 bore pistol was present and he on seeing them started firing .At Wasim Gul, who after being hit, fell down and died on the spot. The appellant also fired at him with which he received injury on his right leg near knee. The occurrence was seen by Haider Zaman and Mst. Ume Tayyaba. The motive for the occurrence was that the appellant had asked for the hand of Mst. Ume Tayyaba for his son, which was refused by Haider Zaman.
5. ' Khawaj Muhammad Khan, IHC recorded the report of Mutawali Khan in the shape of Murasila and sent to the Police Station for registration of the F.I.R. Accordingly, a formal F.I.R. No,243 dated 7-4- 1999 under sections 302/324, P.P.C. Was registered against the appellant in Police Station City, Haripur. He prepared the injury sheet of Mutawali Khan and sent him to the hospital for medical treatment. He also prepared the injury sheet and inquest report of deceased Wasim Gul and sent the dead body to the mortuary for autopsy. Muhammad Rafique, S.H.O. Prepared the site plan, recovered bloodstained earth, four empties of .30 bore pistol from the spot and recorded the statements of P.Ws. He arrested the appellant and from his possession recovered one pistol of .30 bore, its licence copy and five cartridges of the same bore with a magazine etc. ' The appellant, on completion of investigation, was challaned to the Court for trial. The copies of the relevant documents as required under section 265-C, Cr.P.C. Were supplied to him. The charge was accordingly framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. ' At the trial, the prosecution in order to prove the charge and substantiate the allegations levelled against the appellant, produced eleven witnesses. Jamshed Khan HC (P.W.1) had witnessed the arrest of appellant and .Was also marginal witness to the recovery memo. Exh.PW-1/1 vide which .30 bore pistol along with five cartridges, magazine and the pistol's licence copy was recovered.
7. Khawaj Muhammad Khan, IHC (P.W.2) had recorded the report of Mutawali Khan in the shape of Murasila Exh.PA/1, prepared his injury sheet Exh.PW-2/1, inquest report Exh.PW-2/2 and injury sheet Exh.PW-2/3 of Wasim Gul deceased, sent the dead body to the mortuary for autopsy, collected post-mortem report, medical report and blood-stained`clothes of the deceased and handed over to Muhammad Rafique, S.H.O. Mutawali Khan complainant (P.W.3) reiterated the contents of F.I.R.
8. On oath. Haider Zaman (P.W.4) and Mst. Ume Tayyaba (P.W.5) narrated the Ocular account of the occurrence. Muhammad Anwar, S.-I. (P.W.6) on receipt of Murasila registered the F.I.R. Exh. PA.
9. Qamar Zaman F.C. (P.W.7) was marginal witness to the recovery memo. Exh.PW-7/1 and Exh.PW-7/2.
10. Muhammad Rafique, (P.W.8) inspected the spot took into possession four empties 'of .30 bore, bloodstained earth, received bloodstained clothes of the deceased and the injured and prepared the site plan Exh.PW-8/1 at the pointation of Haider Zaman (P.W.4). He recorded the statement of P.Ws, conducted house search of the appellant and took into possession Nikah Nama between Wasim Gul deceased and Mst. Ume Tayyaba produced by Haider Zamau (P.W.4), Exh.PW-812. He arrested the appellant on 18-4-1999 and recovered .30 bore pistol and its licence copy etc. He sent the bloodstained articles, pistol and cartridges to Serologist F.S.L. And received the reports in positive vides Exh.PW-8/3 and Exh.PW-8/4. Sohail Nisar, driver (P.W.9) took the deceased and Mst.
11. Ume Tayyaba from Rawalpindi and de-boarded them in front of the house of Haider Zaman at 10- 30 a.m. He saw the first episode of the occurrence when the appellant insulted the deceased etc. And, after thirty minutes, heard the report of fire shots, rushed to the spot where he saw the deceased lying and Mutawali sitting both in injured condition on the spot. The appellant was aiming pistol at Haider Zaman but because of his hue and cry, he left the spot. He also identified the dead body of the deceased in the Police Station and the hospital and signed the recovery memo. Exh.PW-7/2. Dr. Muhammad Irshad (P.W.10) examined injured Mutawali Khan and conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Wasim Gul, Exh.PW-10/2 & Exh.PW-10/3.
12. Gul Hamid (P.W.11), the brother of deceased deposed that Sohail Nisar (P.W.9) had informed him on telephone about the occurrence.
13. ' The appellant, on the 'conclusion of prosecution evidence was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C.
14. He in his statement denied the 'charge and pleaded innocence. However, he opted to lead evidence in his defence. He produced Muqadar Shah (D.W.1) who deposed that at the time of handing over appellant to Muhammad Rafique. S.-I. Nothing was recovered from his personal search. He through the Court summoned Abdur Rashid (C.W.1) from Daily "Shamal" Abbottabad under section 540, Cr.P.C. Who deposed that the news of the appellant's arrest was published in daily "Shamal" dated 17-4-1999. The appellant did not appear himself as his own witness but submitted an application for requisition of pistol from his house through bailiff of the Court. The trial Court, while rejecting application, had observed that the appellant could produce the pistol in his defence if the same is lying in his house and no useful purpose would be served if the bailiff of Court is directed to recover the same from his house and that too at the tail-end of the trial.
15. However, the appellant through one of his relatives produced the pistol in Court, which on the direction of the Court was sealed.
16. ' The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties and appraising he evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant in terms above stated. Feeling dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence, the appellant has come to this Curt in the instant appeal. Similarly, Mst. Ume Tayyaba, the widow of deceased being aggrieved with the sentence has also filed Cr.R. No,2 of 2004 for the enhancement of sentence. By this single judgment, we propose to dispose of both the matters as these are directed against the same judgment.
17. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
18. ' The learned counsel for the appellant contended that it was unseen occurrence and the appellant was substituted with the actual culprit only after seeing the P.M. Report; inquest report does not bear the names of the accused, weapon of offence, crime empties and witnesses of occurrence; the ocular account is not compatible with the medical report; site plan does not support the version of the P.Ws as there is conflict between the F.I.R. And the statements of the P.Ws; the weapon of offence was planted and sent to the F.S.L. After 28 days of its recovery and the affidavit of the complainant submitted to the trial Court that he had not seen the occurrence had totally discredited him. The learned counsel in the alternative argue that it was not a premeditated murder but in a sudden fight and on grave and sudden provocation the appellant had acted in exercise of his private defence and for which he deserves leniency in sentence.
19. ' On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State duly assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant urged that it was daylight occurrence duly witnessed by the P.Ws. And one of them had the stamp of injuries, the affidavit was the result of pressure and coercion exerted by the convict-appellant, there was no mitigating circumstance for lesser punishment and the appellant deserved normal penalty of death; there was no motive to falsely implicate the convict-appellant and the minor discrepancy having no consequence on the merit of the case could conveniently be ignored.
20. ' The contention of the learned counsel that it was unseen occurrence as Mutawali Khan (P.W.3) having weak eyesight was not capable of seeing things at a distance of 12 feet, has no legal force.
21. Mutawali being an injured eye-witness and the real uncle of the appellant, had reiterated the occurrence on oath in Court and charged the appellant for the death of Wasim Gul and for causing injury to him on his left knee. He had no direct motive against the appellant so as to charge him falsely. He had given the motive in the F.I.R. And repeated the same in Court and deposed that due to that the appellant had killed Wasim Gul, and attempted at his life. The motive was confirmed by Haider Zaman (P.W.4) and Mst. Ume Tayyaba (P.W.5). Mutawali had explained that his eyesight had become weak due to fire-arm injury on his leg. This was confirmed by Mst.
22. Ume Tayyaba that Mutawali after the occurrence, had become physically weak, which had badly affected his eyesight. Similarly, Haider Zaman (P.W.4) had denied the suggestion that his father Mutawali had weak eyesight before the occurrence and was using spectacle and could not identify things at a distance of two /three feet. No doubt, Mutawali is an old person and his old age coupled with fire-arm injury had affected his eyesight yet he had been attending the Court proceedings throughout the trial and even during the hearing of appeal, he was found present in the Court and showed no sign of blindness or weak eyesight. Even with the weak eyesight it was not difficult for yutawali to have identified his nephew (appellant) at the time of occurrence. Mutawali was not the only eyewitness, whose weak eyesight could adversely affect the merits of prosecution case but there were other eye-witness of the occurrence, who were also closely related to the appellant and had equally charged him for the commission of crime.
23. Mutawali being real uncle of the appellant and having no score to settle, had charged him in the F.I.R. From the very initial stage. There was no reason for Mutawali to charge the appellant falsely and substitute him with the actual culprit because the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Iqbal v. State, PLD 2001 SC 222 had held that in cases of murder substitution of an accused, who is actually involved in the commission of the crime, is a rare phenomena, particularly in an incident in which a single accused is involved and due to close kinship, it is very hard to accept the theory of substitution.
24. ' Out of three eye-witnesses only Mutawali had sustained injury in the course of occurrence and, therefore, his presence at the spot could not be doubted. There is no cavil with the proposition that the stamp of fire-arm injury on the prosecution witness is not per se tantamount to a stamp of credence on his testimony, Muhammad Hayat v. State, 1996 SCM R 1411 but where the injured eye- witness version is supported by other witnesses although relates to the deceased yet having no enmity with the accused could safely be relied upon, Shehr-ud-Din v. Allah Rakhio 1989 SCM R 1461.
25. The statement of Mutawali was corroborated by eye-witnesses of the occurrence namely, Haider Zaman (P.W.4), Mst. IJme Tayyaba (P.W.5) and Sohail Nisar (P.W.9) whose information, Gul Hamid (P.W.11), the brother of Wasim Gul deceased had also reached D the hospital on the same day and charged the appellant. All the eyewitnesses were consistent in their depositions, articulate and confidence-inspiring and had fully supported the complainant in the Court.
26. ' The learned counsel next contended that in the inquest report, the weapon of offence, crime empties, brief history of the case, names of ' accused and witnesses of the occurrence were not mentioned, which led to the conclusion, that till the preparation of inquest report the names of accused and the witnesses etc. Were not known to the complainant /police officer. He in support of his arguments relied on Muhammad Ilyas v. State, 1997 SCM R 25. The contention of the learned counsel has no legal and factual substance. The inquest report Exh.PW-2/2 was prepared by Khawaj Muhammad IHC (P.W.2) in, which he had mentioned the weapon of offence as fire-arm, name of the. Eye-witness, Haider Zaman (P.W.4) and the driver of deceased Wasim Gul and identifier of his dead body Sohail Nisar (P.W.9), beside-s two others. The defence had not put any question or suggestion from the P.W.2 as to how the contentious detail was omitted and not mentioned in the inquest report. However, Muhammad Rafique (P.W.8) in reply to questions had stated that the name of eye-witness and an identifying witness of the dead body were mentioned but their signatures in the relevant columns were not available. The P.W.2, who had prepared the inquest report, was not required under the law to mention the names of the accused and eyewitnesses etc. In the inquest report. The purpose of an inquest report is only to find out the cause of death of a person and not the person who had caused the death. The police officer is required to examine the dead body, record by visual observations the causes of death, prepare the injury sheet and sent the dead body along with the injury sheet/inquest report to the hospital for autopsy. In the inquest report only description of wounds or other marks of injuries on body of deceased, manner of causing injuries- and kind of weapon used alone are required to be mentioned. To provide brief history of the case or details of place of occurrence and the name of the accused is the responsibility of either the victim if survives before his death or the eye-witness of the occurrence. The law does not require that the inquest report shall provide the names of accused and the eye-witnesses of occurrence. In Ibrahim alias Ibro v. F State 1968 SCM R 1240 where the Investigating Officer had not mentioned the names of eye-witnesses in the inquest report, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that it was not incumbent upon the police officer to give the name of the eye-witnesses in the inquest report as this is not the requirement of section 174, Cr.P.C. Read with Rule 25.35 of the Police Rules, 1934. The rule was reiterated in Muhammad Aslam v. State NLR 1978 Cri,293 and had held that death resulting from violence is to be recorded in Form `B' of Rule 25.35 ibid, where names of eyewitnesses are not required to be mentioned.
27. Regarding crime weapon, the column 12 of the inquest report requires an opinion as to the kind of crime weapon used in the occurrence and not that the crime weapon should also be mentioned as per requirement of section 174, Cr.P.C.; Allah Bakhsh v. State PLD 1978 SC 171. Any lapse or slip on the part of Investigating Officer to mention weapon of crime would not adversely affect investigation; Muhammad Tariq v. State NLR 1982 Cr.L.J.
28. 452.
29. ' Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Allah Bakhsh v. State; PLD 1978 SC 171; Farid v. Aslam PLD 1977 SC 4 and Munir Ahmad v. State 2001 SCM R 241 had settled that failure to mention recovery of empties in statement of facts recorded in inquest report or omission in not pointing out place to draftsman from where crime empties picked up is a mere irregularity without any legal consequence as the law does not require them to be mentioned in the inquest report.
30. ' No doubt the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the case of Muhammad Ilyas v. State 1997 SCM R 25 had referred the testimony of Investigating Officer, where he had admitted that he had not mentioned the names of eye-witnesses or the accused in the inquest reports, and observed that it would lend support to the defence view that the complainant had falsely deposed before the Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by above observation had not intended to lay down the law that the names of the accused and eye-witnesses of the occurrence were required to be mentioned in the inquest report. It was just an obiter dicta, while determining the merits of prosecution case, having no binding effect as precedent.
31. The preparation of inquest report is a part of investigation. The statements made by witnesses to police during examination in preparation of inquest report under section 174, Cr.P.C. Is not substantive evidence and cannot form basis for conviction; Haji Muhammad v. State PLD 1966 (W,P) Lah.
344. The omission due to inadvertence or inefficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer to fill column in the inquest report Said Shah v. State NLR 1988 Cri. 381 or failure to mention the number of the case, Liaqat Ali v. State 1982 PCr.LJ 390 or absence of detail of place of occurrence hardly discredit its authenticity or adversely affect investigation, particularly in the presence of ocular account of the occurrence.
32. ' The learned counsel next contented that the statements of P.Ws. Are not compatible with the medical evidence as the distance between the appellant and deceased as per site plan was seven paces i,e,, more than 20 feet and the injury No,1 on the deceased in the PM-report was having charring/singeing around the wound; the locale of injury as reported by Mutawali (P.W.3) was on the right knee but according to Medico-legal report it was on the left knee; duration and time of examination of injured Mutawali do not confirm the time of occurrence as the doctor had examined him at 00.15 p.m. And duration of injury was up to one hour.
33. ' According to Dr. Irshad (P.W.10), the deceased had sustained two firearm entry wounds with corresponding exit and Mutawali received one fire-arm entry wound on the left leg knee with corresponding exit. We have examined the original P.M. Report and found overwriting and tampering therein at various places. The words "charring of wound present" were a later entry with different handwriting and different ink with no signature/initial to, verify additions. The additions were further tampered and the word "charring" had been substituted with the word "singeing". Dr. Irshad (P.W.10), when questioned about the additions, had categorically denied making any addition in Exh.PW-10/2. Therefore, in view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel hardly required any consideration. Even otherwise When Qatal-i-Amd had been independently established through consistent and confidence inspiring evidence of the eye-witnesses, then the ocular account had, to be preferred over medical evidence.
34. Mutawali in Court had categorically stated that he had sustained injury on his left knee and it was incorrectly recorded in his report that the injury sustained was on his right knee. The doctor had denied the suggestion that he had examined him at midnight. Khawaj Muhammad (P.W.2) also denied that the injured Mutawali was produced before the doctor at midnight for medical examination. The learned counsel could not discredit P.Ws. And draw any benefit from an inadvertent human error where the word "p.m." instead of "a.m." and "right knee" instead of "left knee" had been mistakenly written. The exact determination of age of injury is not possible even for a doctor. It is always based on some approximate estimate of time since the infliction of injury. The age of injury given in the Medico-legal report was based upon the opinion of the Doctor (P.W.10) formed on visual examination / observation of the wound, which could not be a substitute for direct evidence of eyewitnesses providing correct time of occurrence in their depositions in Court.
35. ' It was contended that the venue of occurrence in the report had been shown in lane near the house of Munshi Anwar Din whereas the site plan Exh. PB had revealed the place of occurrence towards North in front of the appellant's house, under construction. Equally, the contention has no merit. The venue of occurrence is the one, where the blood-stained earth and empties of .30 bore pistol were recovered and the Serologist report had confirmed the blood of human group and the empties, fired from the pistol recovered from the possession of appellant. This site plan was prepared at the instance of Haider Zaman (P.W.4), the eye-witness of the occurrence and the venue of occurrence was the same as given by Mutawali in the F.I.R. But described with reference to the house of Munshi Anwar Din. The occurrence had taken place in the same locality/street where the houses of appellant and his brothers were situated and on its South is the house of Munshi Anwar Din. The site plan otherwise is not a substantive piece of evidence and cannot be used to contradict or discredit unchallenged ocular account. The site plan is always prepared to appreciate or explain evidence on the record and cannot be given preference over direct evidence of credible eyewitnesses. No doubt there are minor contradictions in the statements of P.Ws.
36. Regarding description of venue of occurrence but these are not material and hardly of any consequence and could not be made ground for securing acquittal as inconsistencies with the passage of time are bound to creep up in the depositions of the P.Ws. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Allah Bakhsh v: Ahmed Din 1971 SCM R 462 had observed that minor inconsistency in depositions of prosecution witnesses of inconsequential nature cannot reasonably be considered as good grounds in disbelieving independent and disinterested witnesses. If importance be given to such insignificant inconsistencies there can hardly be any conviction, for seldom is there a witness whose evidence does not suffer from such inconsistencies.
37. ' It was contented that alleged crime empties and crime pistol were planted and sent to F.S.L. After 28 days. The appellant as per Muhammad Rafique, S.-I. (P.W.8) was arrested on 18-4-1999 along with .30 bore pistol etc. The deposition of P.W.8 was confirmed by Jamshed Khan (P.W.1). The P.W.8 on the same day vide application dated 18-4-1999 sent the crime pistol and crime empties along with four test rounds etc., to the F.S.L. For expert opinion. The F.S.L. Report Exh.PW-8/3 and Exh.PW- 8/4 had established that the crime empties 0 recovered from spot were fired from the crime pistol recovered from the appellant. The appellant in order to dispute his arrest and recovery, produced Muqader Shah (D.W.1), licensed pistol through one of his relatives in Court and got summoned Abdur Rashid (C.W.1) through Court from daily "Shamal" Abbottabad under section 540, Cr.P.C. The D.W.1 deposed that he had handed over appellant to P.W.8 on 16-4-1999 and on his personal search, nothing incriminating was recovered. The C.W.1 deposed that the news of appellant's arrest was published in daily Shamal dated 17-4-1999 Exh.D/A. He appeared in Court without identity card or authority letter from daily Shamal, without any evidence showing that the record of Exh.D/A had been destroyed, without covering letter with the news clipping or record showing that the news of appellant arrest on 17-4-1999 was verified/confirmed from police before its publication. The defence could not contradict the fact that the appellant was arrested on 18-4-1999 and on the following day i,e,, 19-4-1999 was produced before the Court for remand and on the same day statements of Haider Zaman (P.W.4) and Mst. Ume Tayaba (P.W.5) were also recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. In his presence. The pistol, produced by the appellant from his house was bearing the same number, which was on the pistol recovered from him at the time of his arrest. He made unsuccessful attempt to create doubt regarding the recovery of crime pistol. The trial Court in the impugned judgment had observed that normally the people keep more than one weapon on one licence and when the licensed pistol of the appellant was in his house, then how the police had come to know of the number of that pistol for plantation and showing recovery from the appellant because till arrest of appellant the licence copy of the pistol was not recovered by the police. The verbal defence assertion without substantiation through documentary evidence would hardly affect he merits of prosecution case because the P.Ws had no motive to falsely implicate and had no malice against the appellant.
38. ' The P.W.8 on the same day dispatched the crime empties and pistol to the F.S.L. Vide application dated 18-4-1999 and handed over the same to the Muharrir. The F.S.L. Received the crime empties and pistol on 3-5-1999 vide Exh.PW-8/D-4. The learned defence counsel mainly cross-examined P.W.8 whether the entries were made in the daily diary regarding dispatch of above articles to F.S.L.
39. And not that the same were lying in a place where the possibility of its replacement or tampering cannot be ruled out. The learned defence counsel did not seek any plausible explanation from the P.Ws. For the delay in sending the crime articles to the F.S.L. During the trial. No question or suggestion was put to the P.Ws. During cross-examination that the above articles were retained in the Police Station where the possibility of tampering with or manipulation could be made. The delay in sending the incriminating articles to the concerned quarter for expert opinion cannot be treated fatal, in the absence of objection regarding the same, having being tampered with or manipulated; Muhammad Mushtaq v. State, PLD 2001 SC 107.
40. ' Besides, the appellant's conduct after the occurrence had been serious noted by the trial Court as well as by this Court. The record is full of malicious letter sent by him from Jail in order to prejudice the judicial mind of the Court. He had attempted to discredit the P.Ws by leveling allegations of various natures. He had manoeuvred addition/tampering in the P.M. Report. He harassed complainant (Mutawali) and pressurized him to withdraw the complaint and to this effect a fake affidavit on his behalf was submitted to the trial Court. Similarly, he, at the tail-end of the trial, had produced the pistol bearing the same number, which was on the crime pistol in order to show that the crime pistol was foisted by the police. He did not spare even the widow of deceased, Mst. Ume Tayaba who under his pressure, at the time of hearing appeal/revision, filed an application for the withdrawal of criminal revision but this Court, in view of appellant's conduct, refused to allow her to withdraw the petition for enhancement of sentence. The learned counsel, after exhausting all possible points, last argued that it was not a premeditated murder but in a sudden fight and on grave and sudden provocation, the appellant had acted in exercise of his private defence and for which he deserves leniency in sentence. This argument of the learned counsel also has no merit.
41. The trial Court had already taken a very lenient view by holding that the immediate cause of occurrence was not disclosed and kept concealed and had awarded sentence after conviction on three counts. The deceased along with his wife etc, had come to Haripur to visit his in-laws. He was unarmed and had no reason to provoke appellant when he came across the appellant. There is not an iota of evidence on the record or even suggestion to the P.Ws. That the appellant, because of the movements of deceased and the injured, had apprehended danger to his life and, in exercise of right of self-defence, killed the deceased and injured Mutawali. The record shows that it was appellant who, at the first instance, provoked the deceased by abusing/insulting him for no motive and later killed him and injured his old uncle for no justifiable reason. Keeping in view of his above conduct, his pleas without substantiation, his previous criminal record and he being desperate deserves no leniency in sentence from this Court.
42. ' We are of the view that the findings of the trial Court could not be shown to have been passed on misreading or non-reading of evidence. The trial Court has appraised the evidence existing on the record thoroughly on the principles for appraisal of evidence in criminal cases for safe administration of justice. The judgment is based on correct application of law and proper evaluation of evidence and, therefore, we see no reason to interfere in the findings of the learned trial Court.
43. Consequently, the criminal appeal filed by Arif, the convict-appellant having no merit is hereby dismissed. His conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life is maintained. However, the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Shall remain intact. The Cr.R. No,7/2004 titled "Ume-Taiyba v. Arif" is also dismissed.