' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.-Akbar Ali appellant was convicted for an offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. Vide judgment dated 30-10-2000 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamalia, District Toba Tek Singh and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to- pay a fine of Rs,50,000 or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Half of the fine, if realized, was ordered to be paid to the heirs of Mst. Nusrat Parveen deceased by way of compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. The benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to the appellant. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence before this Court through the present appeal.
2. The prosecution's allegation against the appellant is that at about 1-00 p.m. On 1-12-1998 he had committed the murder of his real sister namely Mst. Nusrat Parveen (aged about 17/18 years) inside the appellant's and the deceased's house situated in Mohallah Hussain Shah, Kamalia City, District Toba Tek Singh by giving multiple Danda blows to the deceased.. F.I.R. No,397 was lodged in respect of that incident by the father of the appellant (also the father of the deceased) namely Muhammad Yar complainant at 2-30 p.m. On the same day i.e, 1-12-1998 for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. The investigation of this case was conducted by Riaz Hussain, S-I. (P.W.9) and after completion of the investigation a challan was submitted before the learned trial Court.
3. At the commencement of the trial the learned trial Court framed a charge under section 302, P.P.C. Against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. During the trial the prosecution produced as many as ten witnesses in support of its case against die appellant.
Muhammad Yar complainant (P.W.7) and Nooral Ain (P.W.8) had provided the ocular account of the incident in question. In his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant admitted killing his real sister namely Mst. Nusrat Parveen but he maintained that he had committed the said murder on account of Ghairat after seeing his sister sitting with one Muhammad Yasin who had allegedly been carrying on illicit relations with her. However, the appellant opted not to make any statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And he also did not produce any witness in his defence. Upon conclusion of the trial the learned trial Court found the prosecution's case against the appellant to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and thus, the appellant was convicted and sentenced by it as mentioned and detailed above. Hence, the present appeal before this Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the plea of Ghairat advanced by the appellant before the learned trial Court merited acceptance. As against that the learned counsel for the State has maintained that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the appellant's guilt to the hilt and, therefore, the appellant's conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court do not warrant any interference by this Court.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of this case with their assistance it has straightaway been observed that Mst. Nusrat Parveen deceased was the real sister of the present appellant and the F.I.R. Regarding the alleged incident had been lodged by none other than the appellant's own father who was also the father of the deceased. The incident in question had taken place inside the house of the complainant as well as that of the appellant and the deceased. It was a case of a daylight occurrence and the F.I.R. In respect of the same had been lodged with sufficient promptitude wherein the appellant had been specifically nominated as the sole perpetrator of the alleged murder. Muhammad Yar complainant (P.W.7) had absolutely no motive to falsely implicate the appellant, his own real son, in a case of this nature. Similarly Nooral Ain (P.W.8), the other eye-witness, was a neighbour of the appellant as well as of the complainant and he too had not been shown to have any background of bitterness or ill- will again the appellant so as to prompt him to falsely implicate the appellant in such a case. Both the eye-witnesses had made consistent statements before the learned trial Court and their credibility could not be shaken during their cross-examination. The statements made by these witnesses before the learned trial Court had not only inspired the confidence of the learned trial Court but the same have also been found by this Court to be sufficient by themselves to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As if this were not enough the appellant had himself admitted in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. That he was the one who had murdered his real sister Mst. Nusrat Parveen at the time and place stated by the prosecution.
Although the appellant had advanced a plea of Ghairat but he. Had miserably failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to substantiate the said plea before the learned trial Court. There is not even an iota of evidence available on the record * to support the said plea of the appellant. All this has convinced this Court that the allegations levelled by the prosecution against the appellant had been proved before the learned trial Court to the hilt.
6. For what has been discussed above this appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court are upheld with a modification that the sentence of fine passed by the learned trial Court shall be treated as an order regarding payment of compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the heirs of Mst. Nusrat Parveen deceased and the entire amount of compensation shall be payable to such heirs of the deceased failing which the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Has already been extended to the appellant by the learned trial Court. This appeal is disposed of with this modification in the appellant's sentence.