' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J. This appeal, by leave of the Court, is directed against judgment, dated 29-2-2000 passed by the Lahore High Court, in Criminal Appeal No,532 of 1994 and Murder Reference No,232 of 1994, whereby sentence of death awarded to the appellant was confirmed.
2. An F.I.R. No,200 of 1993 dated 20-9-1993 (Exh.P.A./1) under section 302, P.P.C. Was registered against the appellant at Police Station Alipur Chatha, District Gujranwala on the statement of Mst.
Irshad Begum P.W.8. She stated therein that on 20-9-1993 at Chahwela, his husband, Faqir Muhammad deceased left the house for his Dera on a bicycle. She, Mst. Shah Begum (P.W.9) and one Muhammad Riaz also followed him. When the deceased reached Chowk of Street No,9, the appellant came there armed with a pistol. He started firing shots which hit the deceased who fell down and succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
3. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. He was also examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. By the trial Court who took the plea that on account of close intimacy of his mother Mst. Shah Begum P.W.9 with Inayatullah, father of the deceased, there was a serious dispute between Inayatullah and the deceased which culminated in his murder. The appellant further stated that as Mst. Shah Begum P.W.9 had deprived him of the landed property which he had inherited from his father Rehmatullah and that civil litigation was also pending between him and Inayatullah concerning the same. The Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, by judgment, dated 6-10-1994, found the appellant guilty of the charge, convicted and sentenced him to death under section 302(a), P.P.C. As Qisas. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No,532 of 1994 against his conviction and sentence. The trial Court also made a Murder Reference No,232 of 1994 under section 374, Cr.P.C. For confirmation or otherwise of the death sentence of the appellant. The Lahore High Court, Lahore dismissed the Criminal Appeal No,532 of 1994 of the appellant and answered Murder Reference No,232 of 1994 in the affirmation. Hence this appeal, by leave of the Court.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the P.Ws.8 and 9 had given discrepant account of the place of occurrence and that each one of them claimed to have lodged the F.I.R. He stated that the prosecution evidence itself showed that Inayatullah, had not even attended the funeral ceremony of the deceased son. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant had moved an application Crl. Misc. No,1981/M of 1999 under sections 375/561-A, Cr.P.C. Before the High Court to allow Mst. Shah Begum P.W.9 to appear before the Court for making a statement and to disclose the true facts and circumstances of the entire case but the same was unjustifiably dismissed. The learned counsel lastly argued that the medical evidence belied the infliction of injuries on the body of the deceased in the manner stated by the eyewitnesses.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment of the High Court. He, however, pointed out that the award of sentence of death under section 302(a) as Qisas by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court was not proper inasmuch as necessary conditions had not been satisfied. He, therefore, prayed that the sentence of death to the appellant was required to be maintained under section 302(b), P.P.C. And not under section 302(a), P. P. C
6. We have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for both sides and have also gone through the record of the case. The High Court correctly took the view that neither Mst. Shah Begum P.W.9 had made any application nor any affidavit was sworn by her in support of Criminal Miscellaneous No,1981/M of 1999 moved by the appellant. The appellant did not spare his real mother Mst. Shah Begum P.W.9 and levelled serious allegations as to her moral character. The learned counsel did not point out any material contradiction between the statements of Mst. Irshad Begum P.W.8 (widow of the deceased) and Mst. Shah Begum P.W.9 (mother of the appellant) who furnished ocular account of the occurrence. The recovery of pistol (P.4) through (Exh.P.D.) at the instance of the appellant was proved by Hidayatullah P.W.7. The post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Shoukat Ali Cheema (P. W.10). He found as many as nine injuries by fire-arm on the vital parts of the dead body of the deceased. The existence of dispute of the ownership of the agricultural land was also proved by the prosecution which was admitted by the appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. The place of occurrence was quite close to that of the abode of the P.Ws.8 and 9 whose presence there was quite natural. Mst.
Irshad Begum P.W.8, and Mst. Shah Begum P.W.9, fully supported the prosecution case. The deceased Faqir Muhammad was the first cousin of the appellant. The statements of the eye- witnesses and other evidence of the prosecution were believed by the trial Court as well as by the High Court as confidence-inspiring. The impugned judgment confirming death sentence of the appellant does not require any interference by this Court.
7. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this criminal appeal which is dismissed and the sentence of death awarded to the appellant by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court is hereby maintained. However, we would substitute the conviction and sentence under section 302(a), P.P.C. As Qisas with conviction and sentence of death under section 302(b), P.P.C.