' MUHAMMAD AHSAN BHOON, J.---Criminal Appeal No,574 of 2002 is directed against the judgment dated 26-8-2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chakwal whereby Ghulam Yasin appellant was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. For committing Qatl-e-Amd of Naveeda Yasmin and sentenced to death with a compensation of Rs,1 lac under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default to further undergo six months R.I. In case F.I.R.
No,232 dated 15-3-2001 offence under section 302, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Nila District Chakwal. The learned Sessions Judge, Chakwal has sent Murder Reference No,763 of 2002 for confirmation of death sentence of the appellant or otherwise. We propose to dispose of both the matters through this judgment.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 15-3-2001 at about 10-15 a.m. In the area of Mulwal appellant Ghulam Yasin while armed with pistol caused fire-arm injuries to Mst. Naveeda Yasmin, as a result of which she died at the spot. Motive, behind the occurrence was that earlier Mst. Navida Yasmin had been engaged with Ghulam Yasin. Subsequently, she refused to marry with him. Due to this grudge, the occurrence took place. Besides the complainant, the occurrence was witnessed by Khalid Mehmood and Mulazim Hussain P.Ws.
3. After due investigation report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted to the learned trial Court.
Charge was framed against the appellant who denied of the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced its evidence. The appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. In reply to question "why this case is against yod and why P.Ws. Have deposed against you" Ghulam Yasin appellant replied as under:-- "Mst. Naveeda Yasmeen was my Chacha Zad. We both were having love affairs. Mst. Naveeda Yasmeen requested her parents to arrange her marriage with me. , Parents of Naveeda Yasmeen became annoyed and they arranged her murder. Murder was never committed by me. Factually at the time of occurrence I was working in D.G. Khan. P.Ws. Are closely related to the deceased and they are also inimical towards me so they have deposed against me. I produced evidence to prove my innocence but it was not brought on the record. My statement was also not correctly recorded by Investigating Officer."
' Neither he opted to appear as his own witness in disproof of the allegation levelled against him as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Not did he adduce defence evidence. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties passed the above said conviction and sentence, which is being assailed through this criminal appeal.
4. We have gone through the evidence with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The occurrence in this case took place at 10-15 a.m. The F.I.R. Was lodged at 5-30 p.m. At a distance of 13 miles away from the place of occurrence with Police Station Nila District Chakwal, so we do not see any delay in lodging of F.I.R. Particularly when the occurrence was a broad daylight.
The ocular account was furnished by Tahir Mehmood complainant (P.W.7) and Khalid Mehmood (P.W.8) both brothers of the deceased. The appellant Ghulam Yasin came in the house of Mst.
Naveeda Yasmin deceased where only she was present and the appellant had exchanged of hot words with her and then made fire one after the other which hit her on different parts of her body and she died on the spot and Tahir Mehmood complainant (P.W.7) along with Khalid Mehmood (P.W.8) and Mulazim Hussain (not examined) were present in the courtyard of Mulazim Hussain P.W.
At the time of occurrence and saw the same from there and said version was corroborated by Khalid Mehmood (P.W.8),. The evidence furnished by Tahir Mehmood (P.W.7) and Khalid Mehmood (P.W.8) eye-witnesses is in line with the medical evidence furnished by Dr. Naureen Sultana, WMO (P.W.5) who found four entry wounds and three exit wounds on the body of the deceased caused by fire-arm and according to her opinion the time between death and postmortem examination was 12 to 14 hours. So the time given by the doctor supports the version of the complainant about the time of occurrence as the postmortem examination was conducted on the same day (15-3- 2001) at 10 p.m.
6. As far as the, recovery of pistol from the accused is concerned, admittedly no empty was recovered from the spot, hence the positive report of FSC (Exh.PO), according to which the pistol was found in working condition is of no consequence.
7. As far as the motive is concerned, Tahir Mehmood complainant (P.W.7) in the F.I.R. Stated that the accused committed the murder only for the reason that Mst. Naveeda Yasmin deceased was engaged with the appellant Ghulam Yaseen and she refused to marry with the appellant, for the grudge he committed the murder. Tahir Mehmood complainant (P.W.7) while appearing before the Court himself negated the version and stated that the deceased was not engaged with the accused but he was contradicted by other eye-witness Khalid Mehmood (P.W.8) who is also real brother of the complainant and the deceased, as he admitted before the learned trial Court that the deceased was engaged with the appellant and her engagement was broken, due to the reason the occurrence took place. It is also stated in the F.I.R. By the complainant and then before the learned trial Court that there was exchange of hot words between the deceased and the appellant but no detail of the same was given as admittedly nobody else except the accused and deceased were present in the house where occurrence took place. So it stood shrouded in mystery that what happened prior to the occurrence which triggered the incident.
8. We are of the considered view that the prosecution has proved through ocular account and medical evidence that the appellant was the perpetrator of the alleged crime particularly in a case of single accused substitution is a rare phenomenon, when the occurrence was a broad daylight and took place in the house of the complainant and deceased which was a thickly populated place, from where accused cannot got unnoticed.
9. As far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, we have found that both the eye-witnesses were not at a very close distance when the occurrence took place. According to their own version not even a single inmate of house was present at the place of occurrence except Mgt. Naveeda Yasmin deceased and eye-witnesses were in the house of Mulazim Hussain at a distance of 20/22 paces (55 feet), from where they saw the occurrence, as the house of occurrence was not having boundary wall all around as surfaced in the evidence. They also admitted that the accused/ appellant had exchange of hot word and the accused particularly when both eyewitnesses admitted that the accused being their paternal 'first cousin used to come in their house previously.
The story of motive/engagement, of deceased with accused given in the F.I.R. Was negated by the complainant while appearing before the E learned trial Court but his version was contradictory to the evidence of Khalid Mehmood (P.W.8) who is his real brother, he admitted in his evidence that the appellant and deceased were engaged with each other and there is no independent eyewitness of the occurrence. Another important aspect of the to the prosecution itself is that the appellant was a dejected lover and due to breakage of his engagement he was in a state of grief and disappointment.
10. We are of the considered view that the above narrated circumstances available from evidence make it a case of lesser punishment and accordingly we convert death sentence of the appellant into imprisonment for life. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is extended to him. However, the remaining sentence shall remain intact.
11. With the above modification in sentence, this appeal is dismissed. Murder reference is answered in negative. Sentence reduced.