1. ' BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.--- Muhammad Ibrahim son of Fazal Khan, along with his acquitted co- accused Ghulam Muhammad alias Kiki,. Fazal Khan, Mst. Bibi Jan Bismillah Khan, after having been tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sialkot under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, P.P.C. In case F.I.R.
2. No,6 dated 11-1-1998 registered at P.S. Civil Lines, Sialkot for murder of Iftikhar Ahmad, was convicted under section 302(c), P.P.C. And sentence to 18 years' R.I. He was also ordered to pay compensation of Rs,50,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. In default thereof to further undergo six months' S.I. He was further directed to pay fine of Rs,10,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was however, extended in favour.
3. ' The brief facts of the prosecution case are that F.I.R. No,6/98 (Exh.PD/1) was registered on the statement Exh.PB of Mst. Mukhtar, Bibi, PW3, mother of the deceased with the allegation that her husband was employee of PWD and working as a driver at Chawinda with contractor and on the 'day of occurrence at about 5-45 p.m. Her son .Iftikhar Ahmad came out of her house. She also came behind him and in front of house of Mushtaq Ahmad Ansari she saw the accused Ibrahim armed with .12-bore gun while co-accused namely. Ghulam Muhammad alias Kiki, Bismillah sons of Fazal Khan . And Fazal Khan son of Muhammad Jah, Bibi Jan wife of Fazal Khan were quarrelling with her son Iftikhar Hussain, deceased. The deceased raised hue and cry which attracted Sarfraz and Kh. Muhammad Younas to the spot. Meanwhile, accused Ibrahim fired noin his gun hitting Iftikhar Ahmad on his face and neck and forehead. He was taken to Hospital in injured condition but he succumbed to the injuries. The accused fled away from the spot. On hearing hue and cry, Sarfraz Ahmad son of the complainant, Kh. Muhammad Younas son of Muhammad Shafi and Danish son of Muhammad Afzal also came there.
4. ' The motive for the occurrence was that Ghulam Muhammad alias Kiki used to tease her daughter Mst. Asma Bibi, on which her son Iftikhar Ahmad forbade him.
5. ' The investigation of the case was undertaken by Muhammad Inspector, P. W.13 who after recording thAshrafe statement Exh.PB sent the same to the police station for registration of formal F.I.R. Exh.PD/1. Thereafter he took into possession dead body of Iftikhar Ahmad deceased and prepared the injury statement through memo. Exh.PH and inquest report Exh.PG and sent dead body for postmortem examination. Thereafter he arrived at the place of occurrence and collected the blood-stained earth from the spot through memo. Exh.PK. Thereafter, the investigation was entrusted to Imdad Hussain, S.-I., P.W.14 who on 24-1-1998 arrested Muhammad Ibrahim and other accused and Muhammad Ibrahim while in police custody led to the recovery of gun .12-bore P3 which was taken into possession through memo. Exh.PN. After completion of the investigation challan against the accused was submitted.
6. ' The trial Court framed the charge which was denied by the accused and he claimed trial.
7. ' The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused.
8. ' The medical evidence was furnished by Dr. Muhammad Ashraf Khan, P. W.6 who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Iftikhar Ahmad and found the following injuries on his body:--
(1) Multiple small as I/2-c diameter punctured wounds (numerous in number) were present on forehead and all over the face and right side and front of neck.
9. (2). Numerous small punctured wounds about 1/2 c.m. Diameter were present on the front of right chest. Few wounds of 1/2 c.m. Diameter were also present on front of left half of chest adjacent to the midline.
(3) There was swelling of about 10 c.m. x 6 c.m. On right side of the neck with multiple small punctured wound on it.
(4) Multiple small punctured wound about half centimeter in diameter on right shoulder.
(5) A small punctured wound on right eye (upper lid).
10. ' The ocular account was furnished by Mst. Mukhtar Bibi, P.W.3 who was complainant of the case.
11. She supported the prosecution version as narrated in the F.I.R. She also narrated motive for the occurrence. Danish, P.W.2 was injured in the same occurrence, also supported, the prosecution story as narrated by the complainant, P.W.3. Muhammad Younas, P.W. 4 was also eye-witness of the occurrence. Muhammad Sarfraz, P.W. 5 was brother of the deceased. He also witnessed the occurrence. 'The remaining witnesses are of formal nature and need not to be discussed.
12. ' After close of prosecution evidence statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations and claimed his innocence and false involvement. In reply to question No,9 as to why this case against you and why the P. Ws. Deposed against him, he stated as under:-- ' "I have been implicated in this case falsely to save the real culprit Shahid who is maternal uncle of deceased. The complainant party had grudge against me as being a watchman used to forbade them to assemble at the street corner in late night and to make vandalism."
13. ' The trial culminated into conviction and sentence of the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.
14. ' Learned defence counsel has argued that it was a sudden quarrel tookplace between the deceased and the appellant, and the deceased was aggressor and the trial Court after coming to the conclusion that the case falls under section 302 (c), P.P.C. Awarded the lesser sentence, therefore, he does not press the appeal provided the sentence is reduced adequately.
15. ' The appeal has been opposed by learned counsel for the State who has supported the impugned judgment.
16. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I find that the prosecution case was established against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt by the complainant as well as Danish, P.W.2 who was injured A in the same occurrence. The ocular account furnished by the eye-witness has been duly corroborated by medical evidence, therefore, learned counsel for the appellant is justified in not challenging the conviction.
17. ' As far as sentence is concerned, I find that as the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment and it was not premeditated murder and the appellant has also not repeated the fire shot, therefore, the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court appears to be on higher side, so the same is reduced from 18 years to 10 years' R.I. Which will meet the ends of Justice. However, compensation of Rs,50,000 or in default thereof six months' S.I. Is maintained. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Shall, however, be available to the appellant. As the compensation has been awarded therefore, imposition of fine of Rs,10,000 is not legal and proper, so the same is set aside.