Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, J.--This appeal by leave of the 'Court, has been directed against the judgment dated 2.7.2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Criminal Appeal No, 778/1995 whereby the sentence of death awarded to Murtaza son of Ghulam Rasul, Respondent No, 1 here under Section 302(b) PPC was altered into imprisonment for life.
2. The facts of the case in small compass, leading to the filing of present appeal are that on 5.12.1994 at about 3.45 Muhammad Ayaz, complainant, alongwith his brother Liaquat Ali deceased, Asghar and Madad Khan PWs while taking tea were present at the Tea Stall of Shah. Muhammad.
Liaquat Ali, deceased after taking tea when proceeded to his shop adjacent to the tea stall, Murtaza, accused while armed with ' pistol, appearing at the scene, raised lalkara that deceased would be taught a lesson for not effecting the compromise in the murder case of Niaz Muhammad real brother of Liaquat Ali deceased who was killed by one Muhammad Akram about seven years ago and said Muhammad Akram was awarded sentence of death. Murtaza, respondent, being a relative and friend of Muhammad Akram was putting pressure on Liaquat Ali, deceased for compromise but on his refusal, accused retaliated and opened firing at Liaquat Ali, deceased outside the tea stall of Shah Muhammad.
3. After registration of case on the statement of Ayaz Khan (PW-11) at police station Kamar Masani, Mianwali, the investigating officer proceeded to Mianwali Hospital and recorded statement of Liaquat Ali (deceased). The accused on completion of the investigation having been found involved in the murder of deceased was sent up to face the trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali. Dr. Muhib-ur-Rehman (PW-4) conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body and as per opinion expressed by him, the cause of death was the result of acute renal failure which was due to hemorrhage and shock caused by the injuries to the liver, stomach, spleen, and transverse colon. The injuries were caused with fire arm which were ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
4. The accused in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. denied the charge and pleaded not guilty. The trial Court, on the conclusion of trial having found the respondent guilty, convicted him under Section 302 (b) PPC and sentenced him to death. He was also directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs, 50,000/-under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased. In appeal, the sentence of death awarded to the respondent was reduced to life imprisonment by the High Court and complainant being aggrieved of the reduction of sentence of the accused, filed the present appeal before this Court in which leave was granted vide order dated 15.3.2002 to consider the question as to whether in the circumstances of the case, the High Court was justified to modify the sentence of Murtaza, Respondent No, 1 from death to imprisonment for life.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that immediately after the occurrence, the injured was shifted to civil hospital which fact alone was sufficient to establish the presence of witnesses at the spot beyond doubt and the trial Court having appreciated the evidence in a befitting manner has rightly rejected the defence version being absurd. Learned counsel submitted that in absence of a strong mitigating circumstance the withholding of normal penalty of death on prove of the charge of murder provided under the law was not justified.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-convict, on the other hand, opposed the present appeal with the contention that the motive set up by the prosecution was not proved whereas no other circumstance suggesting premeditated occurrence was brought on record and thus the facts leading to the fateful occurrence, would unambiguously show that something happened suddenly between the parties as a result of which retaliator took extreme step of firing at the deceased but none of the parties pleaded the immediate cause of sad incident. Learned counsel submitted that in any case, the respondent having completed full term of his sentence has already been released from jail, therefore, enhancement of sentence at this stage would be against the mandate of law and Constitution.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance, we find that learned Judges in the High Court, have not committed any illegality in reducing the sentence of respondent from death to life imprisonment. The High Court having considered the circumstances leading to the occurrence modified the sentence with the consideration that motive set up by the prosecution was not proved and the immediate cause for the occurrence was also not unfolded. This is correct that motive is not always an essential element of murder and weakness or absence of motive by itself may not be a valid reason for lesser punishment but in the present case, the prosecution has not been able to bring on record the material facts relating to the manner of taking place the occurrence and the immediate cause of occurrence, therefore, apart from the motive, the mystery in the circumstances leading to the occurrence would create a sufficient mitigation in favour of the accused for lesser punishment.
8. In the light of foregoing reasons, the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any material on record to persuade us for interference in the impugned judgment.
Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed and the judgment of the High Court is maintained. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.