' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,1391 of 2004 filed by Fayyaz Ahmad, Tariq and Nisar Ahmad, appellants, who were convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life each and to pay compensation Rs,100,000 each or in default six months RI each with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.. By learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide his judgment dated 12-8-2004.
2. Brief facts of the case, as disclosed by Alamgir Masih complainant are that on 13-9-1999 at 4-00 p.m. In the evening he along with his brothers Riaz Masih and Rafique Masih were present in their house, where Khawar, Shahzad and Fayyaz sons of Noor Nazbi, Tariq and Shahzad sons of Akbar came there and took Riaz Masih brother of the complainant along with them. The complainant along with his brother Rafiq Masih and one Shaukat Masih followed them and accused took Riaz Masih to their agricultural land situated in the village. They put off Shalwar and Qameez of Riaz Masih and all the accused tied the feet of Riaz Masih with the clothes and hanged him upside down on a tree and the accused Khawar, Nisar, Fayyaz started beating him with Sota, they put on fire to the clothes of Riaz Masih and used to put the same on various parts of his body to which his right upper arm and shoulder were burnt. The above-said P.Ws. Came forward beseeched and rescued said Riaz Masih who became unconscious and when they were bringing said Riaz to their house on a cart he died in the way.
3. The motive as alleged was that Fayyaz Ahmad and Nisar Ahmad accused have a suspicion that Riaz Masih had developed illicit relations with their sister.
4. Investigation of the case was taken over by Khalid Hussain S.-I. P.W.12. He recorded the statement of the complainant Exh.PD, sent the same to the police station for registration of formal F.I.R., prepared inquest report Exh.PC and injury statement Exh.PB, went to the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of P.Ws. Under section 16l , Cr.P.C., took into possession Ash vide memo.
Exh.PK. He arrested Shahzad, Tariq, Fayyaz and Khawar on 9-10-1999. On 11-10-1999 Khawar accused led to the recovery of Sota which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PF. On the same day Fayyaz Ahmad accused also led to the recovery of Sota which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PG. Thereafter the investigation was conducted by Lal Muhammad Khan Inspector. 0n 29-3-2000 he arrested Nisar Ahmad accused. After completion of remaining formal investigation, the accused were challaned to face the trial.
5. At the trial, prosecution in order to prove its case produced 12 witnesses in all, thereafter, D.D.A.
Closed the prosecution case, then, the statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which they pleaded their innocence.
6. 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, learned counsel for the appellants submits that according to eyewitnesses on beseeching by them the accused persons left the deceased alive; that according to doctor mode of death was asphyxia and cause of death was blunt trauma to the chest; that doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination gave the time between injury and death immediate but eye-witnesses has stated that deceased died after covering 1-1/2 square; that had the eye-witnesses been present at the spot this occurrence could not have taken place; that the eye-witnesses were not present at the spot according to learned counsel, they have not seen the occurrence; that one witness had stated that he did not make any statement during the course of investigation before the police. He has relied upon 1995 PCr.LJ 248 and 1996 SCM R 1553 relevant at page 1554. Lastly learned counsel submits that if the Court is not satisfied with the arguments of acquittal of the appellants, no case under section 302(b), P.P.C. Is made out and maximum it is a case under section 302(C), P.P.C. Because motive given in the F.I.R.
Was that the appellants had a suspicion against the deceased that he had illicit relations with their sister.
7. On the other hand learned State counsel submits that it was a daylight occurrence; that F.I.R.
Was promptly lodged; that the eye-witnesses and accused are resident of same village; that there is no material discrepancies in the statements of the eye-witnesses; that evidence of the P.Ws. Was recorded after 4-1/2 years and there were minor contradictions in their statements; that there is no motive for false implication of the accused; that relationship of P.Ws. With the deceased is no reason for discarding their testimony; that there is not previous enmity between the parties and he supports the judgment passed by learned trial Court.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. On one hand there is eyewitness account who had implicated the appellants in this case and on the other hand there is a denial on the part of the appellants that they had not committed the murder of the deceased. Most important point in this case in my opinion is motive of the case which is as under:-- ' "The motive as mentioned in the complaint is that Nisar Ahmad and Fayyaz Ahmad have a suspicion that Riaz Masih had illicit relations with their sister."
9. I am of the opinion that both the parties have concealed their actual design and role from the Court. They have not approached the Court with clean hands. They did not come forward with true version and in order to get guidance I rely upon Syed Ali Bepari v. Nibran Mollah and others (PLD 1962 SC 502) a Full Bench judgment of Honourable Supreme Court. Head note-C is very important for the just decision of this case, in which it was held that:-- '"Incompleteness of tale should not deter Court from drawing proper inferences from evidence and circumstances."
10. While drawing my inference from the circumstances and facts of this case, I may state here that the appellants committed the murder of the deceased as he was having illicit relations with their sister. In our society it has become a family honour ({{URDU TEXT) especially in the villages of this country. Both the appellants namely Fayyaz Ahmad and Nisar Ahmad had taken part in this occurrence who are real brothers of said lady with whom the deceased had illicit relations, they along with their co-accused had committed the murder of deceased under grave and sudden provocation. The place of occurrence is Dera of appellants party. The conduct of eye-witnesses is most unnatural. They did not try to interfere when the appellants had allegedly given beating to the deceased; they even did not try to interfere while according to prosecution witnesses the deceased was being hanged on a tree One prosecution witness namely Shaukat Masih C was examined by the Investigating Officer four months after the occurrence. P.W.7 never made a statement and according to his statement he is real brother of the deceased. The number of injuries on the person of the deceased also suggests that it was a case of grave and sudden provocation so while maintaining the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants, it is converted from life imprisonment under section 302(b), P.P.C. To section 302(C), P.P.C. And awards them 10 years' R.I.
With benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
11. As far as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased is concerned, no compensation in such-like cases can be awarded in view of judgment of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled Mairaj Begum v. Ejaz Anwar and others (PLD 1982 SC 294). With this observation instant appeal stands disposed of.