' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,1088 of 2002 and Criminal Revision No,761 of 2002 directed against the judgment, dated 29-5-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, whereby he convicted the appellant under section 302(c), P.P.C. And sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with further direction to pay Rs,1,00,000 as fine or in default six months' S.-I. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also granted to him.
2. Brief facts of the instant case as narrated in the F.I.R. Are that on 11-5-1999 at about 7-30 a.m. The complainant along with his son Sohail Asif was going through near the house of Khadim Hussain accused. On hearing voice of firing they along with other people entered the house of Khadim Hussain. Khadim Hussain fired with his pistol which hit Abdul Ghaffar injured P.W. On his left hand while second fire fired by Israr Ahmad hit the left Dolla of Abdul Ghaffar. He also fired with his rifle .222 bore on the neck of Sohail Asif son of the complainant, who fell down. The motive behind this occurrence was a property dispute between the parties.
3. After getting information about the occurrence the local police completed all the necessary formalities and thereafter Muhammad Riaz S.-I. Along with his subordinates proceeded to the spot.
He prepared the injury statement Exh.PB and inquest report Exh.P.B/1. He took into possession the blood stained earth from the spot vide memo Exh.PG. Last-worn clothes of the deceased were also taken into possession by him vide memo Exh.PC. On 31-5-1999 he arrested Israr Ahmad who got recovered rifle P.5 along with 6 bullets P.6/1.6 vide memo Exh.PK. Ultimately during the investigation the appellant Israr Ahmad was found guilty and was sent to judicial lock up to face the trial while Khadim Hussain his co-accused was found innocent.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has produced as many as 11 witnesses including Investigating Officers Doctor, eye-witnesses and other formal witnesses. After tendering in evidence the report of Chemical Examiner Exh.PN, Forensic Science Laboratory Exh. PQ and that of Serologist Exh.PR learned SPP closed the prosecution evidence. Thereafter statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which they pleaded their innocence. Learned trial Court after taking into consideration every aspect of the case and hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submits that motive, if any, was against Abdul Ghaffar, who was allegedly injured in this case by the appellant and his father Khadim Hussain (acquitted accused) but he was produced by the prosecution, that as far as deceased is concerned, there was no necessity on the part of the appellant to commit his murder because he was not involved in the motive part of the occurrence. He further submits that the occurrence had taken place in the house of the appellant, that if both the versions one put forward by the prosecution and the other put forward by the appellant, are put in a juxta position, then the version put forward by the appellant seems to be more plausible and convincing one.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant who has filed a revision petition, submits that the appellant has admitted the murder of the deceased and also for causing injuries to Abdul Ghaffar injured but no conviction and sentence has been awarded to him by the learned trial Court for causing injuries on the person of Abdul Ghaffar P.W. He submits that it was a case of promptly lodged F.I.R. Ocular account is corroborated by medical evidence. Report of Fire-arm Expert is positive in nature and that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt.
7. Learned counsel for the State although, adopts the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainant but submits that in the circumstances of the case the sentence of the appellant can be reduced from 25 years' R.I to 14 years' R.I.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case two accused persons were name in the F.I.R. Israr Ahmad appellant is father of Khadim Hussain Mujahid who has been acquitted by the learned trial Court. Sohail Asif is deceased in this case. The motive behind the occurrence was that there was a dispute between Khadim Hussain and Abdul Ghaffar injured P.W.
(not produced). As far as deceased is concerned, he had nothing to do with the motive part of the occurrence. Abdul Ghaffar P.W. Injured was not produced for the reason that he was first cousin of Khadim Hussain Mujahid.
9. Now I left with the statement of Muhammad Akram father of the deceased and Ashiq Hussain P.W.B. It is very important to note that occurrence had taken place inside the house of the appellant. Deceased had no business to be present there at the time of occurrence, although, the appellant had taken a specific plea in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. While replying question No,6, which is reproduced below:-- ' "Case is false as narrated by the P.Ws. And actually on the fateful day early in the morning a quarrel took place between my father and Abdul Ghaffar etc. Abdul Ghaffar is allegedly an injured P.W. In the chowk of the Village. After that said Abdul Ghaffar along with his other companions entered in my house where I was residing at the time of occurrence and outraged the modesty of my mother upon this I flared up and picked the licenced rifle of my father and fired at Abdul Ghaffar in meantime Sohail Asif had also entered in my house. Fire hit firstly Abdul Ghaffar and then the same fire after hitting Abdul Ghaffar reflected at neck of Sohail Asif deceased. I had no intention to murder of Sohail Asif. He received the fire incidently. There was no enmity between me and Sohail Asif."
10. According to the said version his plea was that the deceased Sohail Asif had criminally trespassed into his house and he tried to outrage the modesty of his mother but this fact has not been supported by any evidence. Neither he produced his mother during the course of investigation nor before the learned trial Court but the fact remains that the deceased should not have been present in the house of the appellant. The star witness of the prosecution Abdul Ghaffar injured was never produced by the prosecution. Sohail Asif deceased was also not connected with the motive. Learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under section 302(c), P.P.C. But no appeal against his acquittal under section 302(b), P.P.C. Has either been filed by the State or by the complainant. Only a Criminal Revision for enhancement of sentence of the appellant has been filed. The maximum sentence under section 302(c), P.P.C. Has already been awarded by the learned trial Court so no enhancement can be made in the circumstances of the case. There is only one injury on the person of the deceased. Fire was not repeated. Occurrence took place in the house of the appellant.' Deceased was not associated with the motive. Star witness Abdul Ghaffar injured has not been produced. After going through the statement of the eye-witnesses I am also of the considered view that they were not present at the spot even, so while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under section 302(c), P.P.C, I reduce his sentence from 25 years' R.I to 14 years' R.I with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. However, the fine is converted into compensation.
Appellant is directed to pay the compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default he will suffer further S.I for six months. With these observations this appeal stands disposed of.
Criminal Revision is dismissed.