' AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---Through this common judgment we intend to dispose of the above two petitions directed against the common judgment dated 28-10-2010, passed by the learned Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Criminal Appeal No, 115 filed by the convict Muhammad Ikram, Criminal Revision No, 38, filed by the complainant Aqeel Shahzad, and Murder Reference No, 12 of 2008.
2. Brief facts of the case as incorporated in the impugned judgment are that a year ago, before the registration of the F.I.R., Mst. Saima Bibi was married to Muhammad Ikram, the petitioner. Mst. Saima Bibi was brought to the house of the complainant Aqeel Shahzad whereafter she gave birth a baby, who died immediately. According to the complainant, the petitioner insisted to take her wife back to his home and used hot words. On 22-11-2005 at about 2-30 p.m. The complainant along with his brother Raheel, sister Mst. Saima Bibi (wife of the petitioner) and mother Mst. Kalsoom Begum (deceased) were present in the house, when-the petitioner came there and told them that he had come to take his wife (Mst. Saima Bibi) to his house. Mst. Kalsoom Begum mother-in-law of , the petitioner, (deceased) asked the petitioner not to take her with him to which the petitioner insisted.
The petitioner was sternly told by Mst. Kalsoom Begum (deceased) that she would not send Mst.
Saima Bibi with the petitioner till she is completely recovered. Upon this, the petitioner started abusing all the aforesaid persons and took out pistol .30 bore from his fold and started firing on Mst. Kalsoom Begum (deceased) and one fire hit her left flank and she fell down. The petitioner ran away from the place of occurrence. Mst. Kalsoom Begum was removed to the Hospital but she succumbed to the injuries on the way to the Hospital.
3. On receipt of the information about the occurrence Jehangir Khan, SI (P.W.12) reached DHQ Hospital, Rawalpindi, and recorded the statement of Aqeel Shahzad. After completion of codal formalities Jehangir Khan, SI arrested the accused on 30-11-2005, and got recovered crime weapon along with three live bullets on his pointation. The I.O. Recorded the statements of P.Ws. And on completion of the investigation the case of the accused was sent for trial. During the course of trial, in order to prove the prosecution case, twelve witnesses were examined inclusive of documentary material i,e,, reports of Chemical Examiner (Exh.PN), Serologist (Exh.PO) and Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh.PQ) and the prosecution closed its side. The accused recorded his . Statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Pleading false implication. On conclusion of trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under section 302(b), P.P.C. To death with payment of compensation payable to the L.Rs, to the tune of Rs,1,00,000 and in default whereof to further undergo six months SI. The petitioner preferred appeal whereas the complainant preferred criminal revision against the judgment of the trial Court. The learned Hie-. Court while commuting the sentence of the petitioner from death Lo life imprisonment, extended benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. And maintained the conviction of the petitioner as well as the amount of compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C.
The Criminal Revision filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation was however dismissed, which judgment has been challenged by the parties through these petitions.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the complainant (Petitioner in Criminal Petition No,642 of 2010) that the learned High Court has misdirected itself by commuting the sentence of the petitioner from death to life imprisonment. He submitted that the petitioner has entered the house of the complainant with the sole object to kill the deceased, who was not inclined to allow her daughter, the wife of the petitioner, to join him owing to her ill health. He submitted that there were no mitigating circumstances which could warrant lesser punishment. The learned counsel, however, has not cited any judgment in support of his contentions.
5. The learned Additional Prosecutor-General adopted the arguments of the learned Counsel for the complainant.
6. The learned counsel for the convict-petitioner (in J.P. No,582 of 2010) has contended that the petitioner was entitled to acquittal as the prosecution has not produced any independent witness.
He submitted that Aqeel Shahzad and Mst. Saima were son and daughter of the deceased and their evidence ought to have been disbelieved by the two Courts.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Additional Prosecutor-General, and have perused the record. Aqeel Shahzad (complainant) and her sister Mst. Saima were natural witnesses as the occurrence took place inside the house where they were residing. Botl: the eye- witnesses were put to the test of cross-examination but their testimony remained un-shattered.
The close relationship of the prosecution witnesses with the deceased will not make them 'interested witnesses'. This proposition has been propounded by this Court in the case of Talib Hussain v. The State reported in 2009 SCM R 825, where this court has held that close relationship of a prosecution witness with the deceased family does not disqualify him to testify in Court and testimony of such witness could not be discarded on the mere ground of relationship unless it is not confidence inspiring. The ocular testimony furnished by Aqeel Shahzad and Mst. Saima son and daughter of the deceased respectively was confidence inspiring. The ocular evidence is consistent with medical evidence. Two crime empties were recovered from the spot on the day of occurrence i,e, 22-11-2005. The petitioner was arrested on 30-11-2005 and crime weapon was recovered on his pointation on 5-12-2005 and the report of the F.S.L. Was positive. In the face of such material, the High Court was justified in maintaining the conviction of the petitioner.
8. As far as the issue of quantum of sentence of the petitioner is concerned, we have noticed the contents of the F.I.R., a portion of which has been reproduced in the impugned judgment. The contents of the F.I.R. Have not been denied by the complainant. It reflects that there was exchange of hot words between the deceased and the petitioner. The petitioner wanted Mst. Saima to accompany him but the deceased wanted her to stay in her house till she recovers. This act has offended the petitioner which fact is substantiated from the contents of the F.I.R. The petitioner has started firing owing to the refusal by the deceased. This Court in such like matters has commuted the sentence of the accused from death to life imprisonment. The learned High Court in the present case has relied upon the cases of Abid Hussain v. The State reported in (PLD 1994 SC 641) and Rehmat Ali v. The State (1983 SCM R 922) while commuting the sentence of the petitioner from death to life imprisonment.
9. We are of the considered view that the case in hand is fully covered by the judgments referred to hereinabove as the contents of the F.I.R. Lodged by the complainant suggests that the petitioner and the deceased had exchanged hot words before the petitioner fired at the deceased and such circumstances can be held to be extenuating circumstances, which call for commutation of sentence of the petitioner.
10. We, for the aforesaid reasons, do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment, which could warrant interference by this court. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.