' BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.---Hayat Muhammad appellant has challenged judgment, dated 15-7-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki whereby he was convicted under section 308, P.P.C. And sentenced to Diyat amount to Rs,2,90,372 and under section 308(2), P.P.C. 14 years'
R.I. As Tazir in case F.I.R. No,108, dated 25-3-2000 under sections 302, 324, 328, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Saddar, Pattoki.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Mst. Zohra got her statement Exh.PD recorded on the basis of which F.I.R. Exh.PD/1 was registered stating therein that she was married for the last 5/6 years with the accused/appellant and on 25-3-2000 at about 4-30 p.m. She along with her husband was present in his house and her husband Hayat Muhammad asked her for cooking some meal for him which was provided by her and was eaten by Hayat Muhammad. Thereafter her husband called her in the room, tightened her hands with rope and sprinkled acid on her body and fled away from the spot. On hue and cry raised by the complainant, Noor Bibi P.W.3 Muhammad Aslam P.W.1, Nawab Din P.W.2 and many other persons were attracted to the spot. The victim was taken to the hospital where MLC No,186-2000 was issued.
3. Motive for the occurrence was that Hayat Muhammad accused wanted to contract second marriage on which there was a quarrel between husband and wife due to which he committed the instant occurrence.
4. P.W.10 Ali Raza, 5.-I. After receiving information reached THQ Hospital, Pattoki, recorded the statement of victim Exh.PD, sent the complaint for formal F.I.R. Exh.PD 1. He himself arrived at the place of occurrence and prepared site plan. On 2-4-2000 he arrested Hayat Muhammad who while in police custody led to the recovery of plastic cane containing some acid which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PF. On 27-4-2000 Mst. Zohra Bibi died in the hospital on which the Investigating Officer arrived at the hospital and prepared the injury statement of Mst. Zohra Bibi through memo. Exh. PH and inquest report Exh.PJ and handed over the dead body for post-mortem examination. After post-mortem examination last-worn clothes of the deceased were produced before him which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PA. He completed the investigation and submitted the challan.
5. The trial Court framed the charge which was denied by the accused and he claimed trial.
6. During the trial the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses to prove guilt of the accused.
7. The medical evidence was furnished by Lady Dr. Nasreen Dogar P.W.4 who conducted the post- mortem examination and found the following injuries on her person:-- "(1) 22 x 18 c.m. Area decomposed and slogux deep burn injury on face and forehead.
(2) 20 x 6 c.m. Area on front part of head deep burn injury are loss.
(3) 48 x 30 c.m. Area deep burn injury on front of upper part of abdomen, middle part of chest. Both clavicle abrasion of chest front and side of neck and front and top of left shoulder. Slogus was formed on the injury and scorn on the margin of the injury.
(4) 25 x 12 c.m. Slogus and deep burn injury on back of neck and adjacent part of the chest.
(5) 9x3 c.m. Area on the upper part of right thigh slogus injury.
(6) 7 x 4 c.m. Slogus injury back of right arm.
' After going through the hospital record prior the surgical unit of Jinnah Hospital Lahore and said P.W. Was of the opinion that the deceased had died of acute cardiox pulmonary arrest as a result of latent complications of extensive corrosive burns. Injuries were caused by corrosive agent (probably acid).
' Prior to the Dr. Rukhshanda P.W.6 had medically examined the deceased on 25-3-2000 when she was brought in the hospital in injured condition. Karamat Ali Head constable P.W.7 recorded the formal F.I.R. Exhl.PD/1. Nazir Ahmad P.W.8 prepared the site plan to the place of occurrence.
Muhammad Tufail P.W. 9 attested the recovery memo. Exh.PF.
8. After closing the prosecution evidence statement of the accused was recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations and claimed innocence .And false involvement. The appellant in reply to question as to why the case against him and the P.Ws. Deposed against him, they stated as under:-- ' "I have already given detailed answer to question No,4 above. The P.Ws. Deposed against me due to their close relations with each other. So much so during cross- examination Mst. Noor Bibi P.W.3 implicated Mochha and Aata Muhammad as an accused in this case."
9. The trial culminated into conviction and sentence of the appellant as mentioned above. He has challenged his conviction and sentence through the instant appeal.
10. Learned defence counsel has argued that it was an unwitnessed occurrence and the appellant has been falsely implicated and the appellant had no motive to eliminate his wife as he was living happily with her along with minor children.
11. Conversely, learned counsel for the State has opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment.
12. Heard. Record perused.
13. The appellant was nominated in the promptly recorded F.I.R. The occurrence took place inside the house of the accused and the deceased. F.I.R. Was got recorded on the basis of statement of Mst. Zohra Bibi deceased and she had no malice or ill- will against her husband/convict for false implication by letting of the real culprits. Statement of the deceased has been corroborated by the statements of the eye-witnesses. The prosecution case has been further corroborated by medical .Evidence as well as recovery of plastic cane containing acid, therefore, after reappraisal of evidence, I am convinced that prosecution case has been established against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and find no reason to interfere in the conviction recorded against the appellant.
14. As far as sentence is concerned, I find that maximum sentence provided under (the law has been awarded which appear to be too harsh. It is not clear that what happened immediately before the occurrence. By sprinkling the acid on the deceased does not mean that appellant intended to commit her murder, therefore, while maintaining conviction, I reduce substantial sentence from 14 years' R.I. To 10 years' R.I. Which will meet the ends of justice.
15. The prayer of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has no means or owns any property to pay the Diyat amount and has prayed for his release after serving out the substantial sentence subject to his furnishing reasonable surety is not without force. The request being genuine has not been opposed by the learned State counsel, In view of the above, the Diyat amount is reduced from Rs,2,90,372 to Rs,2,00,000 to be paid in three equally instalments in three years after his release. He is directed to be released from jail after serving out the reduced sentence and subject to his furnishing surety for the Diyat amount.
16. Disposed of in above terms.