' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.--- This appeal by leave of the Court has been directed against the judgment, dated 20-10-1998 passed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Murder Reference No,276 of 1994 and Criminal Appeal No,210 of 1994.
2. Shaukat Abbas alias Kaka appellant and his two real brothers namely Sadiq Hussain and Jaffar Hussain were jointly tried under sections 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i) and 452/34, Pakistan Penal Code in a case registered at Police Station, Jalilabad, Milian for the charge of committing the murder of Khadim Hussain and causing injuries to Islam Baig and Shahzad. The learned trial Judge having found the appellant guilty of the charges under section 302 read with sections 337-A(i) and 337-F(i) Pakistan Penal Code for committing the murder of Khadim Hussain and causing injuries to the witnesses namely Islam Baig and Shahzad vide judgment, dated 7-12-1994 and sentenced him as under:---
(a) Death under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code with direction to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A and in default of payment of compensation to undergo R.I. For two years;
(b) one year's R.I. With payment of Rs,1,000 as Daman to Islam Baig under section 337-A(i);
(c) one year's R.I. With payment of Rs,1,000 as Daman 10 Shahzad under section 337-F(i).
The sentences under sections 337-A(i) and 337-F(i) Pakistan Penal Code were directed to run concurrently. Jaffar Hussain and Sadiq Hussain co-accused of the appellant were acquitted from all the charges.
3. The conviction and sentence on the above charges awarded to the appellant was maintained by the High Court by dismissing the appeal and answering the Murder Reference sent by the trial Court in affirmative.
4. The fateful occurrence in the present case had taken place at about 9-15 a.m. In front of the houses of the parties situated in Mohallah Chah Amb Wala within the area of Police Station, Jalilabad, Multan. On the report of the occurrence lodged by Ellahi Bukhsh brother of Khadim Hussain deceased, a case under sections 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i) and 452/34, Pakistan Penal Code was registered against the appellant and his co-accused on the same day at 9-45 a.m. At Police Station, Jalilabad, Multan. The motive behind the occurrence related to the house owned by Hassan Bukhsh father of appellant which was given by him to Imam Bargah and was in possession of Khadim Hussain as, tenant. The appellant wants to dispossess Khadim Hussain deceased from the house forcibly, therefore, deceased having filed a civil suit obtained stay order from the civil Court against forcible dispossession. The accused was annoyed with the deceased and on the day of occurrence at about 9-15 a.m. When the deceased along with complainant, Islam Baig, Shahzad, Bashir Ahmed and Muhammad Ramzan proceeded from his house towards the Civil Court to attend the hearing of the suit was attacked in front of his house by the appellant and the acquitted accused. The appellant was armed with scissors whereas Jaffar Hussain and Sadiq Hussain were armed with Iron pipe and dagger respectively. Shaukat Abbas appellant inflicted a blow with scissors on the left side of chest of deceased and on interference of Islam Baig, he was caused injuries by the appellant on the left ear and on hand. Sadiq Hussain caused an injury with dagger to Shahzad Ahmad whereas Jaffar Hussain gave him a fist blow on his nose. The accused on the hue and cry of the womenfolk of the complainant party decamped from the place of occurrence while extending threats.
5. The prosecution in proof of the charge produced 10 witnesses in all but mainly relied upon the ocular account of the two injured witnesses and the medical evidence. The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the charge and in answer to the question that why the case was registered against him and why P.W. Deposed against him made the following reply: "The deceased and the P.Ws. Belong to one group and some of them are related inter- se. On the day occurrence the complainant and other P.Ws. Came to my house, abducted me from there and brought me to the venue of occurrence. After reaching there when I was trying to get myself released, from the clutches of complainant and others and at that time Islam Baig who was armed with dagger wanted to inflict blow with the same upon my person but per chance the said blow landed on the person of Khadim Hussain deceased and he died because of that injury there and then."
6. Leave was granted in the appeal vide order, dated 5-7-1999 and the operative part of leave granting order is reproduced hereunder:--- ' "Learned counsel has submitted before us that the prosecution evidence has been discarded by the Courts below in acquitting the co-accused of the petitioner and that being so, this set of evidence cannot be pressed into service to record conviction and sentence against the petitioner.
He argued that the prosecution witnesses are interested and are closely related to the deceased.
The prosecution has failed to produce any evidence to corroborate its case. According to the learned counsel, motive as mentioned in the F.I.R. Is shrouded in mystery. At any rate, it was contended that this was a case of single injury and no attempt was made by the petitioner to repeat the blow. The occurrence was not preplanned or premeditated. The learned counsel added that the recovery of scissors, the weapon of offence had not been established beyond reasonable doubt."
7. Learned counsel for the appellant without questioning the truthfulness of the prosecution version and denying the participation of the appellant in the occurrence has contended that it was a case of sudden quarrel in which the appellant a young man of 18 years in the process of preventing the aggression of complainant party under the command of his elder brother inflicted a single blow to the deceased. Learned counsel added that no doubt the civil litigation over the dispute of house was pending between the parties but their relations inter se were normal and nothing happened prior to the fateful incident to suggest that it was a premeditated occurrence and thus the circumstances under which the occurrence had taken place and the manner in which the appellant acted would provide a strong source of mitigation in his favor for lesser penalty. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has argued that the defence plea of sudden quarrel and lack of intention to kill would be negated by the fact that the injury was caused to the deceased with sharp-edged weapon on a very sensitive part of the body which would be the strong evidence of intentional murder.
8. We having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record would not take any exception to the findings of the High Court vis-a-vis the guilt of the appellant. However, it would be essential to determine the true character of transaction to ascertain the question relating to the quantum of sentence. The occurrence in the present case had taken place in the street near the residential houses of the parties in which a single injury was caused by the appellant to the deceased with scissors. The fact that scissors is not ordinarily used as weapon of offence and presence of the womenfolk of the complainant party at the scene of occurrence would be indicative of happening something immediately before the occurrence which resulted into the sad incident and further the appellant despite having the opportunity did not repeat the injury, which would suggest that he under the influence of his elder brothers suddenly flared up and while losing patience and without visualizing the serious consequence of his action caused a solitary injury with scissors on the sensitive part of the body of the deceased which proved fatal to life and therefore while taking into consideration the above special features of the case we are of the view that it was not a case of extreme penalty and sentence of imprisonment for life would sufficiently meet the ends of justice.
9. For the reasons given above, we while dismissing the appeal maintain the conviction of the appellant on all the charges in terms of short order, dated 8-5-2003 which is made part of this judgment. The sentence of death awarded to the appellant is converted into life imprisonment and the amount of compensation of Rs,50,000 is enhanced to Rs,3,00,000. In case of default in the payment of the amount of compensation the appellant shall suffer S.I. For 6 months and the amount of compensation shall be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue. We, however, do not find it a fit case for grant of benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Which is declined accordingly. With the above modification in the sentence and enhancement of compensation this appeal is dismissed.