' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.-This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No, 106-J of 2002 filed by Noor Muhammad and Qaisar Tasaddaq- appellants, who were convicted and sentenced by the learqed Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, in case F.I.R. No,395, registered at Police Station Saddar Muridkey, on 20-10-2000, for offences under sections 302/324/325/337-A(ii)/34, P.P.C., read with section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, vide his judgment dated 6-12-2001 asunder:- ' Noor Muhammad
(a) Death with compensation of Rs,50,000 or in default six months' S.I. Under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. For causing death of Safdar Ali deceased.
(b) Five years' R.I. With fine of Rs, 10,000 or in default two, months' S.I. Under section. 324, P.P.C. For causing injuries to Mst. Rani.
(c) Five years' R.I. With Arsh amounting to Rs,60,000 under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. For causing injuries to Mst. Rani.
(d) Five years' R.I. With fine of R$. 10,000 or in default two months' S.I. Under section 324, P.P.C. For causing injuries to.Mst. Rani.
' Qaisar Tasaddaq ' Life imprisonment with compensation of Rs,50,000, or in default six months' S.I. Under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. For murder of Safdat Ali.
' Murder Reference No,854 of 2001 for confirmation or otherwise of death sentence of Noor Muhdmmad-appellant shall also be disposed of through this single judgment.
' (It may be mentioned here that Qaisar Tasaddaq has already been acquitted on the basis of compromise vide judgment dated 27-2-2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No,2010 of 2001. Hence this appeal to his extent is disposed of accordingly.)
2. Brief facts of the case as disclosed in F.I.R. Exh.PA are that Mst. Pervin Bibi cousin (Khalazad) of Mukhtar Ahmad- complainant was married with Noor Muhammad-appellant about 17/18 years ago. The relations between the spouses were strained. The complainant and his brother Safdar Ali tried to settle the dispute but in vain.' On the fateful day, at about 6-30 a.m. Noor Muhammad armed with .32 bore revolver and Qaisar Tasaddaq armed with pistol came at the house of the complainant and asked where was Safdar Ali he would kill him and would teach a lesson for the favour of Mst. Pervin Bibi. Both the accused entered the room of Safdar Ali. The complainant, Bashir Ahmad and Mst. Rani (mother of the complainant) followed the accused. When they reached the door of Safdar Ali's residential room, they saw that Noor Muhammad fired at Safdar Ali which hit on his left flank. Qaisar Tasaddaq also fired which hit Safdar Ali at his riglit armpit. Safdar Ali fell down and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. When the complainant party tried to apprehend the accused, Noor Muhammad fired which hit Mst. Rani on her head. The accused fled away from the spot, The complainant and others followed the accused. Noor Muhammad fired with his revolver in his abdomen and fell down. Qaisar Tasaddaq made good his escape. Meanwhile, the inhabitants of the village gathered there and they apprehended Noor Muhammad along with his revolver.
Subsequently, they produced Noor Muhammad before the police along with his revolver.
3. After registration of formal F.I.R., the investigation of the case was taken over' by Farmaish Ali, S.- I./P.W.14. The complainant produced Noor Muhammad along with his revolver .32 bore before him.
P.W.14 took the revolver into possession vide memo. Exh.PE and prepared the injury statement of Noor Muhammad-accused Exh.PM. He proceeded to the place of occurrence, took over the dead body, prepared injury statement Exh.PN and inquest report Exh.PO. He took into possession bloodstained earth from the spot vide memo. Exh.PJ. P.W.14 formally arrested Noor Muhammad on 24-11-2000. He also arrested Qaisar Tasaddaq on 26-11-2000. At the time of arrest pistol .30 bore P- 4 was also recovered from his possession along with two live rounds, which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PK. After completion of investigation, the accused were sent up to face trial.
4. At the trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case produced 14 witnesses in all. The prosecution after tendering in evidence the report of Forensic Science Laboratory Exh.PR closed its case. The accused in their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Pleaded their innocence.
They did not appear as witness under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. After conclusion of trial the appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated above.
5. After having read the entire prosecution evidence, statement of the appellants recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And other relevant material available on record, the learned counsel for the appellants in support of this appeal submits that the occurrence did not take place in the manner, the witnesses have stated; that the witnesses were inimical towards the appellants; that no independent witness was produced during the trial; that the recovery evidence would be of no consequence as the pistol was handed over to the police officer by the complainant and it did not contain any live bullet or any empty; and that in any case it was not a case of capital punishment, as the case of Noor Muhammad-appellant is at par with that of Qaisar Tasaddaq, who was sentenced to imprisonment for life.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State have submitted that the witnesses being inmate'; of the house were natural witnesses; that Mst. Ram also received injuries during occurrence, hence, her presence catmot be doubted; that one of the appellants, Noor Muhammad was apprehended at the spot and was handed over to the police immediately after the occurrence; that the matter was reported, to the police without any delay; and that the ocular account is supported by the medical evidence and corroborated by the circumstances of the case. Ch. Nazir Ahmad, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the. State in criminal appeal has frankly conceded that case of Noor Muhammad- appellant was at par with that of Qaisar Tasaddaq, hence, it was not a case of capital punishment.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and scanned the entire record carefully. According to prosecution case,^ Mst. Pervin Bibi (Khalazad of the complainant/P.W.4) was married with Noor Muhammad-appellant for the last 17/18 years. Husband and wife used to quarrel oftenly, so the complainant and Safdar Ali-deceased advised Noor Muhammad to behave but he continued quarrelling. On the fateful day at 6-30 a.m. Noor Muhammad while armed with .32 bore revolver and Qaisar Tasaddaq while armed with pistol entered the house of the complainant and inquired about Safdar Ali. Noor Muhammad was exhorting that he would not spare Safdar Ali for favouring Mst. Pervin Bibi. Both the appellants went inside the residential room of Safdar Ali. They were followed by the complainant, Bashir Ahmad and Mst. Rani Bibi P.W.5 (mother of the complainant and Safdar Ali). Noor Muhammad fired, which hit on the left flank of Safdar Ali. Qaisar Tasaddaq also fired which hit on the right armpit of Safdar Ali, who died at the spot. When the witnesses tried to apprehend the accused, Noor Muhammad fired with his revolver, which hit on the head of Mst. Rani, who fell down. Thereafter the accused left the house. They were followed by the P.Ws. Meanwhile, Noor Muhammad caused fire with his revolver on his abdomen and fell, while Qaisear Tasaddaq made good his escape. Noor Muhammad was apprehended on the spot by the P.Ws. As well as residents of the locality. During apprehension Noor Muhammad received injuries.
He was produced before the police at the time of registration of case. The complainant also handed over the pistol, which was used by Noor Muhammad to the police officer.
8. In support of prosecution case Mukhtar Ahmad and Mst. Rani Bibi appeared as P.Ws. 4 and 5 before the learned trial Court. Both the P.Ws. Are inmates of the house and are natural witnesses.
Their statements regarding the murder of Safdar Ali are consistent, coherent, natural and trustworthy, which are supported by the medical evidence to the extent that the deceased lost his life due to fire-arm injuries and corroborated by the circumstance like apprehension of Noor Muhammad at the spot and registration of case without any delay. They had no previous ill-will or enmity whatsoever. Similarly Mst. Rani Bibi, who is mother of the deceased, had no previous ill-will or enmity to involve Qaisar Tasaddaq (since acquitted on the basis of compromise) falsely in this case. The learned trial Court has rightly believed the direct evidence and ignored the discrepancies in the medical evidence. The defence plea taken by Noor Muhammad-appellant is absurd. He was unable to name the inmate of the house, who had fired at him which accidentally hit Safdar Ali.
According to him, he was summoned by Safdar Ali for patching up the matter between him and his wife, but the moment he reached there Safdar Ali and other inmates of the house started beating him. If this was so, then there was no need for any of the inmate to cause fire at Noor Muhammad.
There was no other motive except the one narrated in the F.I.R. In the above noted circumstances, we have concluded that as far as the murder of Safdar Ali is concerned, the prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt against the appellants.
9. Having come to this conclusion we have given our considerate thought to the quantum of sentence awarded to Noor Muhammad-appellant. It has been noticed by us that case of Noor Muhammad was at par to that of Qaisar Tasaddaq and both of them were attributed one fire-arm injury each. Qaisar Tasaddaq was sentenced to life imprisonment while Noor Muhammad- appellant was sentenced to death. No revision was preferred seeking enhancement of sentence of Qaisar Tasaddaq, who stands acquitted on the basis of compromise vide judgment dated 27-2- 2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No,2010 of 2001. The case of Noor Muhammad is not distinguishable from that of Qaisar Tasaddaq co-accused, who had been treated leniently. Hence, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for offences under sections 302(b)/34, P.P.C. We reduce his sentence to life imprisonment. Order passed by the learned trial Court under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Is maintained. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is extended to the appellant.
10. Noor Muhammad-appellant was also Convicted for offences under sections 324 and 337-A(ii), P.P.C. For causing injuries to Mst. Rani Bibi P.W.5. It was alleged that Noor Muhammad caused firearm injury on the head of Mst. Rani Bibi. This allegation is contradicted by the medical evidence, as Lady Dr. Nasreen Akhtar Malik, who examined Mst. Rani Bibi on the day of occurrence observed a lacerated wound 3 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. On left side of top of head. (It was bone exposed and was 12 c.m.
Above left ear). According to her opinion, the injury was caused by blunt weapon. Hence the. Injury cannot be attributed to Noor Muhammad-appellant, who is acquitted of all the charges for offences under sections 324/337-A(ii), P.P.C. And the judgment passed by learned trial Court to that extent is set aside.
11. With the above modifications in the sentences, this appeal is partly allowed.
12. Murder Reference is answered in the negative. Death sentence is not confirmed.