The appellant was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan in case FIR No, 230/2006 dated 15.6.2006 under Sections 302/34 PPC at Police Station Saddar Mailsi and vide impugned judgment dated 30.11.2007, was convicted under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, with a fine of Rs, 100000/- and in case of default, the same was to be recovered as arrear of land revenue. He was also given the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C.
2. It is inter alia contended that the prosecution hopelessly failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt, therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted for any offence; that no time of occurrence is mentioned in the FIR; that it is an unseen occurrence; that the appellant has been involved in this case with ulterior motive; that the alleged Churri which was recovered from the petitioner was not blood stained; that medical evidence does not support the ocular account, in the first information report the alleged PWs say that the accused inflicted three Churri blows whereas in the medical evidence there is only one injury of sharp edged weapon, which makes the presence of prosecution witnesses highly improbable; that the deceased was initially injured and taken to hospital and criminal case was registered under Section 324/34 PPC on 15.6.2006 whereas he was discharged from the hospital on 21.6.2006 and that he died after one month and 18 days of the discharge from the hospital and that postmortem was conducted on 11.9.2006 with a delay of about two months for which no explanation was given; that according to the postmortem report cause of death was not known and that the so called dying declaration is neither signed by the doctor nor by the Magistrate; that in the postmortem report, doctor has opined that the cause of death was not known; that so called dying declaration of no value due to the fact that the petitioner was given proper treatment in the hospital and in view of his good health and improvement he was discharged; that the petitioner can not at all be convicted for offence u/S. 302 PPC in view of afore stated medical report. Learned counsel for the petitioner also with vehemence argued that the so called dying declaration and first report contradictory to each other as the deceased in his statement made before the police, has narrated the occurrence in altogether different manner which is sufficient to prove that the story as put forth by the prosecution was not true and occurrence was not witnessed by the PWs and that since the prosecution failed to prove its case therefore petitioner deserves acquittal. Learned counsel for appellant in support of his contentions placed reliance upon law laid down by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan 2006 SCMR 1626, 2007 PCr.LJ 1192.
3. Conversely, learned DPG for the State vehemently opposed the submissions made at bar by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. In view of the postmortem report wherein doctor has categorically opined that the cause of death was not known, I am of the considered opinion that appellant cannot be convicted under Section 302(b) PPC, particularly when deceased was discharged from the hospital within a period of one week from the date of occurrence upon improvement in his condition and there is nothing on record to suggest that in discharging the injured/deceased, there was any malice attributable to the concerned doctor however the prosecution has proved its case under Section 324 PPC.
Therefore the conviction awarded to him under Section 302 PPC is converted into Section 324 PPC and is maintained. As far as the quantum of the sentence is concerned, since he did not repeat Churri blow therefore, the sentence is reduced to Seven years imprisonment. He shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C.
6. With this modification of sentence, this appeal is stands disposed of.