' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,508 of 2001 filed by Dilawar son of Muhammad Bakhsh, who was convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Muzaffargarh, vide his judgment dated 15-6-2001 as under:-- ' Death with compensation of Rs,50,000 or in default thereof six months R.I. Under section 302(b), P.P.C.
Murder Reference No,508 of 2001 for confirmation or otherwise of death sentence of appellant shall also be answered through this single judgment.
2. Briefly, the relevant facts of the case as mentioned in F.I.R.Exh.P.G. Are that the complainant Abdul Ghafoor, who was a cultivator, resided in Mouza Thul Mamghraj along with his family and brother Abdul Rasheed-deceased, Hazoor Bakhsh and Abdul Majeed (both residents of Khairpur Sadat) close relatives were staying with him as guests. In the morning of fateful day i.e, 8-7-1997 while complainant was working in his field in front of his house, Nabi Bakhsh came and called complainant's brother Abdul Rasheed, who came out. Nabi Bakhsh along with Abdul Rasheed proceeded towards the house of Dilawar Jatoi. At about 9-00 a.m. On hearing noise, the complainant Abdul Ghafoor along with Hazoor Bakhsh and Abdul Majeed rushed to the place of occurrence and witnessed that accused Bahawal had caught hold of Abdul Rasheed and within their view Dilawar who was armed with hatchet gave a blow on right side of the head of Abdul Rasheed and in the meantime, Nabi Bakhsh also gave hatchet blow to Abdul Rahseed, which landed near the seat of first blow, bleeding started from the head of Abdul Rasheed. On seeing the bleeding, Bahawal left Abdul Rasheed who fell down. Abdul Ghafoor complainant along with Hazoor Bakhsh and Abdul Majeed, who were empty-handed, made an attempt to apprehend the accused but they extended threats that if they came near then they would also be done to death.
The accused along with their weapons of offence left the place of occurrence. Abdul Rasheed succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
3. After registration of formal F.I.R. Investigation of the case was taken over by Kalim Akhtar, Inspector/P.W.10. He proceeded to the place of occurrence, took over the dead body of the deceased, prepared injury statement Exh.PB. Inquest report Exh.PC. The Investigating Officer took into possession blood-stained earth vide memo. Exh.PE. All the accused persons were arrested on 1-8-1997. Dilawar-appellant led to the recovery of hatchet P.1 from his house on 29-7-1997, which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PD. During investigation Bahawal and Nabi Bakhsh were found innocent. After completion of investigation the accused were sent up to face trial.
4. During trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution produced 10 witnesses in all. The learned AAP after tendering in evidence the reports of Chemical Examiner Exh.PJ and that of Serologist Ex. h.PK closed the prosecution case. In their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. All the accused pleaded false implication. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court while acquitting Bahawal and Nabi Bakhsh convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.
5. After having read the entire prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And other relevant material available on record, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is an unwitnessed occurrence; that the eye-witnesses namely Abdul Ghafoor is real brother of the deceased while Hazoor Bakhsh is also a relative of the deceased, so they are interested witnesses; that the F.I.R. Was belated one; that on the same evidence and with the same role of causing blow on the head of the deceased, Nabi Bakhsh co-accused has been acquitted by the trial Court but Dilawar was convicted; that the recovery is planted upon the appellant; and that in these circumstances no case is made out against the appellant and he deserves acquittal. However, in any case his submissions do not find favour of this Court, then there are two mitigating circumstances, one is that it was a case of family honour and secondly it was a case of single injury.
6.. On the other hand, the learned A.A.-G., to whom we have called to assist the Court, submits that the appellant is named in the F.I.R.; that it was a broad-daylight occurrence; that no previous enmity existed between the eye-witnesses and the appellant; and that it is not a case of substitution; that the ocular account is corroborated by the medical evidence. Thus, he supports the judgment of the trial Court.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The occurrence in this case had taken place on 8-7-1997 at 9-00 a.m., while the matter was reported to the police on the same day at 6-15 p.m. The distance between the police station and the place of occurrence is 12 kms. The deceased in this case is Abdul Rasheed, brother of the complainant. The accused namely Dilawar appellant, Bahawal, real brother of the appellant and Nabi Bakhsh were named in the F.I.R. The motive as given in the first information report is that the accused persons had suspicion that Abdul Rasheed-deceased had illicit relations with their mother and so they committed the murder of the deceased.
8. One injury each, according to eye-witnesses and as mentioned in the F.I.R., was attributed to the appellant and his real brother Nabi Bakhsh/co-accused. Nabi Bakhsh has been acquitted by the trial Court. Medical evidence fully corroborates the ocular account, as the Doctor who conducted post-mortem, in first line of this cross-examination has admitted that there was only one injury on the person of Abdul Rasheeddeceased. Nabi Bakhsh co-accused was also found innocent during investigation. No recovery was effected from him. There is no background of enmity between the eye-witnesses and the appellant. No question of substitution of the present appellant arises. He is the only accused in this case, who had committed murder of the deceased. There are two mitigating circumstances in favour of the appellant, one, it is a case of single injury and the second is that the prosecution itself has set motive that the appellant suspected that the deceased had illicit relation with his mother, so due to family honour he committed the murder of Abdul Rasheed.
9. In these circumstances, though we maintain his conviction under section 302(b), P.P.C. But convert the same to imprisonment for life with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. This appeal is dismissed, death sentence is not confirmed and the murder reference is answered in the negative.
Sentence reduced.