' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29-10-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab, whereby, after having tried the appellant, he was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced him to imprisonment for life as.Tazir with a further direction to pay a compensation of Rs,1,00,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. In default whereof to further undergo R.I. For six months.
Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to the appellant. Criminal Revision No,1231 of 2003 was filed for enhancement of the above sentence. Both these matters are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. Brief facts of the case, as given by the complainant Abdul Ghaffar in the F.I.R., are that on the fateful date and time his deceased son Abdul Qayyum went outside on the call of appellant, he did not come back for a considerable time and complainant left for appellant's house along with Ghulam Muhammad and Shafqat Ali, they reached near appellant's Haveli and heard hue and cry of his son, they saw that the deceased was lying on the ground and appellant was giving successive blows of hatchet on his person, on having seen them the appellant decamped from the spot and deceased had succumbed to the injuries at the spot whose legs and feet were tied with a piece of cloth. The motive alleged was that the appellant had suspicion that the deceased had illibit liaison with his daughter.
3. After having completed legal formalities, challan was submitted against the accused before the learned Court of competent jurisdiction, accused denied the charge and claimed trial, where the prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused, produced nine witnesses during the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submits that there is a delay of eight hours in lodging the F.I.R., presence of eye-witnesses is most unnatural as they are residents of a place 2-1/2 miles away from the place of occurrence, they are inter se related and chance witnesses, prosecution story is unbelievable, it was a case of grave and sudden provocation, the hatchet recovered was not a blood stained and the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant and that the appellant is entitled to acquittal by this Court.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel" for the complainant who has filed revision petition for enhancement of sentence of the appellant submits that the witnesses are natural one; that the parties were known to each other therefore, no question of substitution arises; that there was no previous enmity between the appellant and the eye-witnesses to falsely depose against him; that the ocular account in this case was corroborated by the medical evidence; that it was a case of death but the learned trial Court has already taken a lenient view; that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond a shadow of doubt and that this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6: I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have gone through the record with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also given anxious consideration to the submissions made at the bar by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The appellant is named in the F.I.R. With a specific role of having caused successive hatchet blows on the person of the deceased. There was no previous background of enmity between the appellant and the eye-witnesses for false implication in the case. The Court has to see the quality of the evidence and not the quantity and while doing so the Court has to overlook the technicalities, if the prosecution evidence is coming through an unimpeachable source as has been produced in this case. Even otherwise, it is a rare phenomenon that a father would let off the real killers of his son and would falsely involve the appellant. Moreover, the ocular account in this case was corroborated by the medical evidence. I have no doubt in my mind that the appellant has committed the murder of the deceased. The learned trial Court has already taken a lenient view by way of not awarding maximum sentence to the appellant provided under the law though for reasons not recognized under the criminal dispensation of justice but the fact remains that the complainant had himself stated in the F.I.R. That the appellant had suspicion of illicit relations of the deceased with appellant's daughter and this factor was considered by the learned trial Court to be a ground for lesser sentence.
8. After having sifted grain from the chaff after having applied independent judicial mind, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond a shadow of doubt to sustain conviction against the appellant. The learned trial Court has delivered a well-reasoned judgment to convict the appellant which does not call for interference by this Court in the appellate jurisdiction. Resultantly, this appeal has no merit which is accordingly dismissed after having maintained the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court vide the impugned judgment, in toto except with the modification that the sentence of imprisonment in default of compensation shall be read as six months' S.-I. And not six months' R.I. Because the same is against the mandatory provision of section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Shall remain intact. For afore-referred reasons, Criminal Revision No,1231 of 2003 is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.