'HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through this criminal appeal the appellant has assailed the judgment dated 1-12-2004 passed by learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Juvenile, Justice System Ordinance, Khanewal in case F.I.R. No,203/02 dated 11-2-2002 under section 302, P.P.C.
Police Station Katcha Khuh, District Khanewal. The appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:- Sentenced to life imprisonment under section 302(b), P.P.C. As Tazir and fine of Rs,1,00,000 as compensation to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. And in default thereof to undergo 6 months, S.I. He was also given the benefit of section 382(b), Cr.P.C.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 10-8-2002 at 10.00 p.m. The complainant came to Bheni Sahoonwali, Chak No,7/9-R along with her son Muhammad Ameen aged 28/29 years, Muhammad Tasawar (accused) and Muhammad Hanif after being free from the work Muhammad Ameen and Muhammad Tasawar left for village 7/9-R. After about 15/20 minutes Muhammad Tasawar came to her and Muhammad Hanif and told them that unknown persons had murdered Muhammad Ameen by giving blow with sharp edged weapon on his head on the watt falling in between Killa No,14 and Killa No,15 square No,57 Chak No,7/9-R. This land was owned by Muhammad Tasawar reached the place of occurrence where the complainant found the dead body of her son lying in east west direction. It was stated that Muhammad Ameen had been murdered by unknown persons with sharp edged weapon due to some grudge or enmity.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that appellant has served out more than 11 years of his sentence; that it is a case of no evidence; The appellant is a juvenile. In the the appellant was shown as eye-witness of the occurrence while later on through supplementary statement the appellant was nominated as an accused. Learned counsel submitted that this is a case of single shot; that the appellant did not repeat the fire; that in such like cases Honourable Supreme Court has always taken lenient view and has reduced the sentence maintaining the conviction. Learned counsel makes reliance on "Saee Muhammad v. The State" 2007 SCM R 203 in which case the accused had given single sota blow to the deceased who fell in the pond and died. The accused- appellant and co-accused were convicted by trial Court and sentenced to imprisonment for 25 years. High Court, while maintaining conviction of accused under section 302(c), P.P.C. Reduced sentence from 25 years to 10 years. In another case "Rashid Ahmad v. Muhammad Jamil and another" 1989 SCM R 1383 the accused had caused only one injury taking no undue advantage of the situation nor acting in a cruel or unusual manner. The accused was sentenced to death and fine of Rs,4,000 or in default two years R.I. He was also ordered to pay Rs,6,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. On appeal the High Court acquitted him of the charge of murder, but he was convicted under section 304, Part-I, P.P.C. And sentenced to seven years R.I. With fine of Rs,15,000. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon on another unreported case Criminal Appeal No,428 of 2004 titled Maqsood Ahmad v. The State, wherein the accused was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 302(b), P.P.C. And to pay compensation of Rs,1,00,000 under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To the legal heirs of the deceased, in default to further undergo six months R.I. Benefit in the offence of section 382(b) of Cr.P.C. Was also given. On appeal, this Court converted his sentence from section 302(b), P.P.C. To 302(c), P.P.C.
4. The learned DDPP has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I shave also minutely gone through the precedent case law referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant.
6. In the cited cases the conviction was altered from section 302(b), P.P.C. To section 302(c), P.P.C.
The instant case is also of single blow. Further the appellant being a juvenile did not act with premeditation. In the interest of safe administration of justice, the conviction awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court is converted from section 302(b), P. P. C . To section 302(c) P. P C . The sentence of the appellant is altered to that already undergone by him as the same will meet the ends of justice.
7. With this modification in sentence, this appeal is dismissed.