' MUHAMMAD AHSAN BHOON, J.---Through this petition Muhammad Akbar, petitioner seeks suspension of sentence awarded to him vide judgment, dated 29-9-200/ passed by the learned ASJ, Khushab, whereby he convicted the petitioner under section 302-B, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life and compensation of Rs,1,00,000 to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Benefit of section 382, Cr.P.C. Was extended to him.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. The learned trial Court has reproduced the statement of accused/ convict (petitioner/appellant) as under:-- ' Muhammad Akbar accused "The P.Ws. Are related inter se. It was an unseen occurrence. The deceased was available in his house with my daughter Mst. Farzana in kitchen of house at the dead hours of the night and in these circumstances, he received injuries under grave and sudden provoation. The door of the kitchen was chained from inside which was broken. The I.O. Had collected blood-stained earth from the kitchen and the articles belonging to the deceased from my kitchen but he has dishonestly concealed these facts. The I.O. Also got prepared a video film of the place where deceased received injuries and thereafter under the influence of complainant party twisted the real facts of the case and made a false case against me, my brother and my son."
4. The learned trial Court after appreciating the, evidence of prosecution and defence counsel brought on record, concluded in para. 22 of the judgment as under:-- "Both the sides have no controversy about the cause of death of Eid Khan deceased on the time of his receiving injuries or of death. The first controversy between them is about motive behind the occurrence. The prosecution relates it with Mazhar the other son of the complainant, through the nature of motive in both cases remained identical. The second and main controversy between them is about place of occurrence linked with manner of commission of the same. The complainant Muhammad Ayub P.W.10 stated the time of returning back from his farm house to home in the company of his son. Eid Khan at about 12:15 a.m. After mid night without explaining any special reason for his unusual late time return to home. The other two P.Ws. Claiming to be eye- witnesses also do not seem to be truthful. The place of allegedly selected by the accused for commission of crime also could not be a better choice instead of attacking the deceased on a deserted place, a jungle away from the village and the fact that whey the accused spared the complainant himself who is also the father of said Mazhar. The reaction of the complainant at the spot by not coming forward for the rescue of his beloved son in also unnatural. Keeping both the versions in juxta position, the defence version looks more plausible and natural while the prosecution version is otherwise and so is its evidence. Leaving apart the admitted facts, I have no other option but to believe the defence version."
5. The above quoted portion of the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court would show that the prosecution version was totally disbelieved whereas the defence version was accepted by the learned trial Court. It is settled proposition of law that for the purpose of conviction and sentence the statement of accused is to be believed in toto and inculpatroy part of the statement cannot be read in isolation while excluding the exculpatory part of the statement, when it was believed by the learned trial Court that the deceased was done to death in dark hour of the night when he was found in objectionable position with Mst. Farzana daughter of Akbar petitioner and Mst. Farzana escaped as she fled leaving her home and got asylum in the house of her uncle Ramzan as is evident from para. 20 of the judgment itself. Thereafter in my considered view the conviction and, sentence of the petitioner under section 302(b), P.P.C. Read with section 34, P.P.C. Requires reconsideration which is floating on surface from the bare perusal of paras. Nos. 20 and 22 of the impugned judgment. Another important aspect of the case is that Jaffar co-convict of the petitioner has been granted bail by this Court vide order, dated 7-7-2008 and case of the petitioner is at par with his co-convict.
6. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed and conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner vide judgment, dated 29-9-2007 passed by the learned ASJ, Khushab is hereby suspended subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of D.R. (Judicial) of this Court.