' NASIM SABIR, J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3-7-1996 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Layyah, whereby the appellant Khalid Mehmood accused was convicted under section 302(b), PP.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life, also to pay Rs.50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased, in case of failure to pay the compensation, to further undergo six months imprisonment. Benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended. Imran Mehmood co-accused was however, acquitted.
2. Briefly the prosecution case is that on 27-6-1995 there was some quarrel between the appellant and his wife Mst. Naseem Begum (deceased daughter of the complainant). On the subsequent day Abdul Aziz P.W.8 along with witnesses went to the house of Khalid Mehmood. There in their house, the accused hurled abuses and asked them to get out of the house. Abdul Aziz, etc. Had just reached the outer door when they heard shriek of Mst. Naseem Begum and in their sight Imran held her arm and Khalid inflicted a Soya blthv to Mst. Naseem Begum. She was further given Soya blows by Khalid on her back. The complainant party tried to apprehend the accused but they escaped by brandishing their weapon.
3. After registration of criminal case, usual investigation was conducted and accused were sent up to face trial. On frame of the charge, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
During trial, the prosecution produced its witnesses which include the Investigating Officer, the Medical Officer, the complainant, eyewitnesses and also the formal witnesses from police. Khalid Mehmood when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Came up with a version that in fact his mother and sister had quarrelled with Mst. Naseem and during scuffle the deceased was got injured by Mst. Robina, his sister. The accused party produced four D.Ws. In their defence and these witnesses only made statements with regard to innocent of Imran acquitted accused. On conclusion of the trial, as mentioned in the opening paragraph, Khalid was convicted and sentenced vide the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused appellant argues that right from the very beginning the accused had taken a definite stance that during scuffle among the womenfolk Mst.
Naseem lost her life whereas he was made scape goat. Learned counsel further tried to point out some contradictions in the prosecution evidence. Subsequently, however, he twisted to alternate plea by arguing that the prosecution had failed to prove its case, under section 302(b), P.P.C. According to him at the most case would fall ,under section 302(c), P.P.C. Considering the material available on record. He therefore, laid much stress by arguing that conviction be altered to one under section 302(c), P.P.C. And sentence may also be reduced to the period already undergone.
5. Learned state counsel however, supports the impugned judgment by contending that valid and cogent reasons have been assigned by the learned trial Court while convicting and sentencing the appellant.
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. After a careful scanning of the record, I am of the view that although Khalid accused has taken up a stance that quarrel among the womenfolk resulted in unfortunate death of Mst. Nasim Mai but the fact remains that recovery of Soya was effected on his pointation, to which recovery there is no challenge. Similarly, though four witnesses were produced in defence but all these witnesses deposed that Imran co-accused was innocent and no one pleaded innocence of Khalid accused appellant. The prosecution through cogent evidence did prove the commission of murder of Mst.
Nasim Mai at the hands of Khalid Mehmood accused appellant. But it is also admitted fact even in the F.I.R. That complainant party itself went to the house of appellant and dispute between the appellant and Mst. Nasim Mai a day prior to the fateful day is also not denied. In these circumstances, what preceded immediately before the occurrence has attained vast importance but these circumstances remain shrouded in mystery. With the foregoing background and the material on the file, I am of the view that case against the appellant would fall under section 302(c), P.P.C. And not under section 302(b), P.P.C. Therefore, while altering the conviction of appellant to under section 302(c), P.P.C., the sentence of life imprisonment is reduced to the imprisonment for seven years' R.I. The sentence of imposition of compensation is however, upheld and maintained.