JUDGMENT MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.1287 of 2005 (Muhammad Rehan Khan v. The State) and Criminal Revision No.616 of 2005 (Syed Muhammad Salem Shah v. Muhammad Rehan Khan, and others) as both these matters have arisen out of the same judgment dated 25-5-2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, whereby, the appellant was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life as Tazir with a direction to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lac only) as fine. He was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000 (Rupees three lac only) as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased as provided under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was withheld by the learned trial Court. Criminal Revision No.616 of 2005 (Syed Muhammad Saleem Shah v. Muhammad Rehan Khan and others), filed by Syed Muhammad Saleem Shah (complainant), for enhancement of sentence of the appellant(respondent therein) was admitted on 23-11-2005 and notice was issued to him.
2. Brief facts of the case, as given by P.W.3. Syed Muhammad Saleem Shah (complainant) in the F.I.R. (Exh.PC/1) are that he, along with his brothers, used to live in one house. On 26-2-2002 at about 10.30 a.m., he was standing on the roof top/Balconi of his house while his brother Syed Muhammad Nadeem Shah(deceased) was.Standing near the door of the house, when, suddenly, Muhammad Rehan Khan (appellant), reached there while brandishing Chhurri in his hands, caught hold of Syed Muhammad Nadeem Shah(deceased) with his one hand from his hairs and caused a cut on his throat with the said Chhurri with the other hand. After raising hue and cry, complainant came down and but in the meanwhile appellant caused further Chhurri blows on other parts of body of deceased and ran away on seeing the complainant. Syed Aftab Shah and Syed Muhammad Farrukh Shah attracted to the hue and cry raised by the complainant who, according to the complainant, witnessed the occurrence. All of them followed the appellant and apprehended him along with the Chhurri. As per F.I.R., the complainant came back and attended his brother Syed Muhammad Nadeem Shah(deceased) who had died due to the injuries caused by the appellant.
They produced the appellant along with Chhurri before the police. The motive stated in the F.I.R.
Was that the deceased lodged a criminal case vide F.I.R. No.312 of 2001, under section 324, P.P.C. At Police Station Shandara, against the appellant who bore a grudge and killed him.
3. After completion of investigation, challan was prepared and submitted before the learned trial Court, copies were distributed to the appellant as required under section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, charge was framed, to which, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced as many as 12 witnesses during the trial. The ADA gave up Amir Shahzad and Sohail Azmat P.Ws. Being unnecessary through his statement dated 2-11-2002. On 6-1-2004, the learned ADA tendered in evidence reports of the Chemical Examiner (Exh.PM) and Serologist (Exh.PN) and closed the prosecution evidence. The appellant was examined under section 342 Cr.P.C. He did not opt to depose on Oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Mark-A is a copy of Rapat No.10, dated 26-2-2002 of Roznamcha of Police Station Shandara Lahore, Exh.DA is a copy of Rapat No.26 dated 26-2-2002 of Roznamcha of the same Police Station and Exh.DB is a copy of the interim orders dated 1-2-2002 and 26-2-2002 of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate at Cantt. Lahore, which were tendered in evidence by the defence.
Ahad Hussain Constable was examined as CW1. In answer to the following Question No.2:- "It is in evidence that on 26-2-2002 at about 10-30 p.m. Syed Saleem Shah P.W. Was present in the Balkoni of his house whereas his brother Muhammad Nadeem Shah(deceased) was present near main gate of the house. In the meanwhile, you appeared there brandishing your Chhurri. As you came there with one hand held Nadeem Shah from his Hair whereas cut his throat/neck with your Chhurri with the other hand. Syed Saleem Shah raised alarm and rushed down stair. When he was came down stair in his view you inflicted Chhurri blows on the other parts of the body of the deceased. On seeing Syed Saleem Shah you started running and his alarm attracted Syed Qaiser Aftab and Syed Muhammad Farrukh who came there and witnessed the occurrence. They all overpowered you along with your Chhurri. When complainant went back found his brother dead and after some time police came there and complainant produced you along with the Chhurri to the police. What you say about it?
The appellant stated as under: "It is incorrect. At the time of alleged occurrence I was present in the Court of Mr.Riaz Ahmad Khan, Cantt: Court and shall produce certified copy of my presence in Court. I was not arrested from the spot by the P.Ws. Rather. I voluntarily appeared before Shafqat Ahmad DSP of the area and the allegations of apprehension are concocted and false".
In answer to Question No.7, "why this case against you and why the P.Ws. Have deposed against you", the appellant, stated as under:- "The incident of murder of Nadeem Shah deceased was not witnessed by.Anyone. Nadeem Shah deceased was a habitual criminal. He was having enmity with lot of persons. His unknown enemies done him to death. Assailants of his murder were not known to the complainant and the witnesses.
They made me scapegoat and on the basis of false and fabricated allegations implicated me in this bogus case. The motive for my implication was the previous case having been registered at the incidence of Nadeem. Shah deceased and the fact that Saleem Shah complainant wanted to purchase the neighbouring house of my mother on nominal rates which was not agreed by us. I am absolutely innocent in this case".
However, after conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of this appeal, contends that it is the case of the prosecuting that statement of the complainant (Exh.PC) was recorded at the place of occurrence which fact alone, shows that it was recorded after preliminary inquiries, deliberations and consultations because it is not the normal human conduct of a person whose brother has been killed; that the complainant did not go to the police station neither sent anybody else nor imparted this information to the police by any other means i.e. Telephone; that it is highly doubtful, In the circumstances of the case, that statement of the complainant was recorded at 10-3G a.m. As being claimed by the prosecution because, firstly, there is over writing in time as far as figure 30 in the Exh.PC is concerned, secondly, it is the case of the prosecution that P.W.11. Muhammad Yagoob A.S.-I. Recorded this statement but it is proved from the Police Record that on 26-2-2002 the said A.S.-I. Had left the Police Station at 8-45 a.m. Along with Ahmad Saleem Inspector to attend the Court of Mr.Mehmood Maqbool Bajwa, Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Lahore, which is at a distance of about 20 kilometers and it takes about 90 minutes from the said Court to reach at the place of occurrence, thirdly, there is even overwriting beneath the Karwai Police in Exh C/2 as far as time is concerned because figure 10 has been converted into figure 15; that even the story of arrest of the appellant at the spot is not plausible because it is the case of the prosecution that the appellant is a well built person of sound physique while P.W.3. Syed Muhammad Saleem Shah (complainant) and P.W.4. Qaisar Shah, as compared to the appellant, are persons of lesser height, therefore, his arrest at the hands of the said P.Ws. Especially when he (appellant) was armed with a Chhurri is not understandable; that actually the appellant was produced before the police by his father because the complainant side had blocked the road and created law and order situation; that even otherwise, the story of the prosecution is highly improbable as the deceased received nine sharp edged weapon injuries and the normal conduct of the P.Ws. Would have been to shift the injured to the hospital instead of apprehending the appellant; that the motive has not been proved by the prosecution because it is the case of the prosecution that earlier the deceased lodged a criminal case vide F.I.R. No.312 of 2001, under section 324, P.P.0. At Police Station Shandara on 28-4- 2001 against the appellant in which the appellant himself was injured and P.W.3. Syed Muhammad Saleem Shah (complainant) has admitted, during the cross-examination, that the said matter was patched up as the compromise was effected between the parties, thus, there was no reason for the appellant to kill the deceased after ten months of the above occurrence when the matter had been patched up; that both the eye-witnesses i.e. P.W.3. Syed Muhammad Saleem Shah (complainant) and P.W.4. Qaisar Shah are closely related to the deceased as P.W.3. Is the real brother of deceased while P.W.4. Is the real maternal nephew of the deceased; that even otherwise, P.W.4. Qaisar Shah is not resident of the place where.The occurrence took place and he has not been able to give any plausible explanation for his presence at the spot at the time of the occurrence; that both the eye-witnesses are interested, inimical and chance witnesses, therefore, their statements are not reliable; that there is no independent corroboration to the testimony offered by both the eye-witnesses; that even the prosecution story is not supported by the medical evidence as it is the case of the prosecution that throat of the deceased was firstly cut and thereafter other injuries were caused whereas if it is accepted to be true, then after cutting the throat, the deceased was not in a position to defend himself and the injuries on his hand and arm suggest that the deceased made an attempt to save his life; that the investigation in this case was dishonestly conducted because the appellant had taken a specific plea of his presence before the Court of a learned Magistrate, at Cantt.- Courts, Lahore at the relevant time and in this respect produced a certified copy of the interim orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate Cantt. Courts dated 26-2-2002 wherein it is clearly mentioned that at the first call the appellant was present' before the said Court but his co-accused, namely, Gul Zeb Khan was absent whereas at the second call made at 11-00 a.m., the appellant was again present and the other accused was absent; that the prosecution story is belied by the judicial record which is admissible in evidence under Article 88 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 coupled with the fact that more than one hour is required for reaching the place of occurrence from the Cantt. Courts; that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and that the appellant is entitled to acquittal.
6. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, while vehemently opposing this appeal, contends that the appellant is named in the F.I.R. With a specific role of causing Chhurri blows on the body of the deceased which was promptly lodged; that the appellant was apprehended at the spot along with the Chhurri which clearly rules out any possibility of preliminary inquiries, deliberations and consultations at the hands of the complainant/prosecution; that the documentary evidence produced by the appellant in the form of attested copies of Rapat Roznamcha was that P.W.11.
Muhammad Yagoob A.S.-I. Was not present in the area of Police Station Shandara which is- of no avail to the appellant as no person in this respect was examined; that the police official, namely, Ehsanul Haq Naib Moharrir was produced by the appellant but was given up; that it is clear from Rapat No.11 dated 26-2-2002 of Roznamcha of Police Station Shandara that Muhammad Yaqoob A.S.-I. Left the Police Station at about 8-50 a.m. For patrol duty and then as per Rapat No.10 dated 26-2-2002 Ahmad Salem Inspector alone went to the Court of the learned Judge ATA Court for evidence purpose and came back to the Police Station on the same day at 5-5 p.m.; that as a matter of fact Exh.DA and Mark-A (copies of Rappat Nos.10 and 26 both dated 26-2-2002), are forged documents and were manoeuvered by the appellant in connivance with one Ehsanul Haq Naib Moharrir who was firstly summoned as a Defence Witness but was given up later on, therefore, no importance can be attached to these documents; that there is no chance of false implication of the appellant at the hands of the P.Ws.that the ocular account in this case is supported by the medical evidence, recovery of bloodstained Chhurri (P3) which was taken into possession through Exh.PD and positive reports of the Chemical Examiner(Exh.PM) and Serologist (Exh.PN); that the appellant took a specific plea of being present in some Court but no convincing evidence has been brought on record in support of the said plea as it is the case of the appellant that on the relevant date and time he was present before the Court of Mr.Riaz Ahmad Khan, Cantt. Court, Lahore but suggestion given to P.W.3. Syed Saleem Shah was that on the day of occurrence the appellant was present in some Court in some case which was a vague suggestion; that Exh.DB is not a genuine document and even otherwise it appears from the circumstances of the case that it was manipulated as in the first order dated 1-2-2002 non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued against the appellant and his co-accused for 26-2-2002 because they were absent on that date but the interim order dated 26-2-2002 is silent how the appellant, for whose production non- bailable warrants of arrest were ordered to be issued, appeared before the Court on bail; that the time 11.00 a.m. Mentioned in the second call of the order of the same date is written with different handwriting, so, the said document is of no avail to the appellant; that so much so no witness during the course of investigation was produced in support of the said plea and even no application for transfer of investigation was given by the appellant to the police despite the fact that his father was an Advocate and that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt.
As far as Criminal Revision No.616 of 2005 (Syed Muhammad Saleem Shah v. Muhammad Rehan Khan and others) is concerned, which was filed for enhancement of sentence of the appellant from imprisonment for life to death, the learned counsel for the petitioner/. Complainant contends that the said revision petition has been admitted to regular hearing and the appellant, who is respondent therein, is under notice; that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondent/appellant beyond any shadow of doubt as he was apprehended at the spot along with the weapon of offence i.e. Chhurri (P3) which was taken into possession through Memo. Exh.PD and in this regard reports of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist are positive in nature; that as the appellant has caused large number of injuries on the person of the deceased in a brutal manner, therefore, no mitigating circumstance exists in his favour and that he has wrongly been awarded lesser sentence by the learned trial Court which may be enhanced to death. He has relied on Muhammad Iqbal v. The State (2002 SCM R 374), Muhammad Yasin and 2 others v. The State (2002 SCM R 391), Mehr Khan v. The State (2003 SCM R 673), Hashmatullah and another v. The State (2003 SCM R 1230) and Muhammad Tahir Khan v. State and another (2004 SCM R 1703)
On the other hand, while defending the notice for enhancement issued to the appellant/respondent in Criminal Revision No.616 of 2005 (Syed Muhammad Saleem Shah v.
Muhammad Rehan Khan and others), learned counsel for the respondent/ appellant submits that there are mitigating circumstances in this case as the prosecution has failed to prove the motive and it is not known as to what exactly happened immediately prior to the occurrence between the deceased and the respondent/appellant. He has also referred to the statement of P.W.3 Syed Saleem Shah to show that criminal cases were also registered against the deceased. In support of the above submissions, learned counsel for the respondent/appellant has placed reliance on Qalb-e-Abbas alias Nahola v. The State (1997 SCM R 290), Mehrban Khan and another v. Javaid Khan and 2 others (2001 SCM R 195), Hameed Khan alias Hameedai v. Ashraf Shah and another (2002 SCM R 1155), Khan alias Khani and another v. The State (2006 SCM R 1744), Liaqat Ali v. The State (2008 SCM R 95), Rohtas Khan v. The State (2010 SCM R 566) and Amjad Iqbal v. The State (2010 PCr.LJ 1065).
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, have given anxious consideration to their arguments and have also scanned the evidence on record with their able assistance.
8. Occurrence in this case took place on 26-2-2002 at about 10-30 a.m., the matter was reported to the police by P.W.3. Syed Muhammad Saleem Shah (complainant) at 11-00 a.m. Through Fard Bayan (Exh.PC) recorded by Muhammad Yaqoob A.S.-I. At G.T.Road near Kashmir Park, Shandara, the formal F.I.R. Was registered on the same day at about 11-15 a.m. While the distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was about 2 kilometers. It has vehemently been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the complaint (Exh.PC) was not recorded at the time stated by the prosecution and even the said statement of the complainant could not be recorded by P.W.11. Muhammad Yaqoob A.S.-I. Because on that day he was with Ahmad Saleem Inspector who left the Police Station at 8-45 a.m. On 26-2-2002 vide Rapat No.10 (Ekh.Mark-A) for proceeding to the Court of Mr.Mehmood Maqbool Bajwa, Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Lahore and came back to the Police Station along with the said Muhammad Yaqoob A.S.-I. (P.W.11) at 5-05 p.m.
As is evident from Exh.DA. The original Roznaincha was produced before the learned trial Court and relevant entries were retained on the file of the Court as Exh.PC/3, Exh.PC/4 and Exh.PC/5 as we have noted that as per Rapat No.10 dated 26-2-2002, Ahmad Saleem Inspector alone left the police station at 8-45 a.m. To appear before the Court of Mr.Mehmood Maqbool Bajwa, Judge ATA Court, Lahore, and vide Rapat Roznamcha No.11 dated 26-2-2002 of Police Station Shandara, Lahore, Muhammad Yagoob A.S.-I. Left the Police Station for patrol duty at 8-50 a.m. Both the Rapats are on the Paper Book as Exh.PC/4. So, there was a clear contradiction in the original record and the copies produced by the appellant and these copies were issued by one Ehsanul Haq Naib Moharrir.
The appellant submitted an application for producing the said Ehsanul Haq as DW but later on he was given up which is clear from the interim order of the learned trial Court dated 15-5-2004 which is available at page 36 of the Paper Book. So far as argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that there are some overwriting on some digits in Exh.PC and Exh.PC/2, we may observe that it is not material because there is no over-writing as far as digits 10 in Exh.PC and digits 11 in Exh.PC/2 are concerned coupled with the facts that in the F.I.R. All the necessary details are duly mentioned, the appellant was arrested at the spot along with the weapon of offence (Chhurri-P3) which was taken into possession through memo Exh.PD. Therefore, we are of the view that in the circumstances, the documents (Mark-A and Exh.DA) are of no avail to the appellant. We also hold that statement of the complainant (Exh.PC) was recorded at 11-00 a.m. And the formal F.I.R. Was lodged at about 11-15 a.m., so, lodging of F.I.R. With such a promptitude rules out the possibility of preliminary inquiries, deliberations and consultations at the hands of the complainant/prosecution.
9. The prosecution, in order to prove the ocular account has produced P.W.3. Syed Muhammad Saleem Shah (complainant) who is real brother of (deceased) while P.W.4. Qaisar Shah is the real maternal nephew of the deceased but merely on the ground of their close relationship with the deceased, their testimony cannot be discarded as the same inspires confidence and they have proved their presence at the spot at the time of occurrence coupled with the fact that in such like cases substitutidn is a rare phenomenon. The question of placing reliance on the statement of a related witness came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Haji v. The State. (2010 SCM R 650) wherein, at page 658, the learned Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under:-- "Furnishing full and complete corroboration to the prosecution story, both these ocular witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence but their testimony remained firm, consistent and reliable on all material particulars. Some minor variations in their evidence are insignificant, having no material effect on the incriminating nature of their testimonies which get due corroboration from the medical evidence of P.W.2. Reproduced hereinabove. Both the ocular witnesses undoubtedly are inter se related and to the deceased but their relationship ipso facto would not reflect adversely against the veracity of the evidence of these witnesses in absence of any motive wanting in the case, to falsely involve the appellant with the commission of the offence and there is nothing in their evidence to suggest that they were inimical towards the appellant and mere inter se relationship as above noted would not be a reason to discard their evidence which otherwise in our considered opinion is confidence- inspiring for the purpose of conviction of the appellant on the capital charge being natural and reliable witnesses of the incident".
In Khalid Saifullah v. The State (2008 SCM R 688), the proposition "substitution is a rare phenomenon" was dilated upon by the August Supreme -Court of Pakistan. At page 692, the learned apex Court has been pleased to hold as under:-- "(8) There is no such material available on record which would indicate substitution of the petitioner in the case with the real culprit. Substitution is a phenomenon of a rare occurrence because even the interested witnesses would not normally allow real culprits for the murder of their relations let of by involving innocent persons. In this context, reference can usefully be made to the case of Irshad Ahmad and others v. The State and others (PLD 1996 SC 138)".
10. Apart from above, the ocular account furnished by P.W.3. And P.W.4 finds support from the postmortem examination of the deceased which was conducted by Dr.Syed Shafiq Hussain Zaidi.
The postmortem report is on the record as Exh.PWH/A which has been proved by P.W.10,Muhammad Imtiaz, Assistant Medicolegal, Department of Forensic Medicines, KEMC, Lahore as the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination was not available. The doctor noted following injuries on the person of the deceased:- "(1) An incised wound 17x2 cm on right side of neck 3 cm right to midline and 7 'cm below right year.
(2) Ah incised wound 5x2 cm on right side of front of chest 2 cm right to midline and 7 cm from right nipple at 5 O'clock.
An incised wound 7 x 1.5 cm on
(3) front of left chest 4 cm below left nipple at 6 O'clock 4 cm left to midline.
(4) An incised wound 9.2.5 cm on back of left forearm 7 cm above wrist joint x 14 cm below elbow joint.
(5) An incised wound 9x1.5 cm on back of left forearm just touching left wrist joint.
(6) An incised wound 2.5x1 cm on back of left thumb. An incised wound 5x1.5 cm on
(7) front of right palm.
(8) An incised wound 5x1.5 cm on the middle fingers of right hand.
(9) An incised wound 7x2.5 cm on left thigh 12 cm. Above left knee joint.
(10) An incised wound 11x4 cm on lower and'of left thigh 3 cm above left knee joint.
(11) An incised wound 6x1 cm on left knee joint".
The allegation against the appellant was that he caused Muni blows on the neck/throat and other parts of the body of the deceased. According to the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries on the body of the deceased are caused with sharp-edged weapon, so, the ocular account in this case is supported by the medical evidence.
11. The ocular account in this case is further supported from the recovery of blood-stained Chhurri (P3), which was taken into possession through Exh.PD and positive reports of the Chemical Examiner (Exh.Pm) and Serologist (Exh.PN).
12. So far as plea of alibi taken by the appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Is concerned, we have noted that this plea is of no avail to the appellant for the reasons, firstly, this plea was not specifically put to the eye-witnesses rather a vague suggestion was put to P.W.3., Syed Muhammad Saleem Shah(complainant) that on the day of occurrence the appellant was present in some Court in some case in Cantt. Courts, Lahore, secondly,, we have gone through Exh.DB and noted that in the first order dated 1-2-2002 non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued against the appellant and his co-accused for 26-2-2002 as he and his co-accused were absent.
The notice was also issued to the surety for the said date but the interim order dated 26-2-2002 is silent as to how the appellant, for whose production non- bailable warrants of arrest were ordered to be issued, appeared before the Court. Nothing has been brought on record as to whether the order dated 1-2-2002 was recalled. Even has not been brought on record by the defence that whether any surety appeared before the said Court, thirdly, we have also noted that in the second order of 26-2-2002 a specific time of 11-00 a.m. Has been given but it appears to be with different handwriting and, lastly, no witness was produced in support of the said plea, therefore, we hold that the appellant has failed to substantiate the said plea.
13. In the afore-referred circumstance of the case, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt to maintain his conviction under section 302(b), P.P.C. The precedent case law relied upon by the learned counsel for both the sides is distinguishable and is not applicable in this case because every criminal case is decided on the basis of its. On peculiar facts and circumstances.
14. Now we would like to take up the question of quantum of sentence which is the moot point agitated through the revision petition. The appellant in this case was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life. Having dissatisfied with the quantum of sentence, complainant of the case filed Criminal Revision No.616 of 2005 (Syed Muhammad Saleem Shah v. Muhammad Rehan Khan and others) for enhancement of sentence of the appellant from imprisonment for life to death. The said revision petition was admitted to regular hearing and notice for enhancement was issued to the appellant. After having heard arguments from both the sides on this aspect of the case, we have noted that it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased lodged a case F.I.R. No.312of 2001, under section 324, P.P.C. At Police Station Shandara against the appellant in which incident appellant himself was injured by his on fire (as per F.I.R. Exh.PB) but P.W.3 Syed Muhammad Saleem Shah (complainant), while appearing before the Court, has admitted that the said matter was patched up between the parties. While coming to the motive part of the prosecution case, in our view the prosecution has not been able to prove the motive set up in the F.I.R. Coupled with the fact that the deceased was also involved in some criminal cases as is admitted by P.W.3. Syed Muhammad Saleem Shah (complainant) in the following words:- ".......I do not know the number of F.I.R. But he was involved in a case and the petitioners are not D known to me. Haji Shaukat had lodged F.I.R. No.102 of 2000 for theft at Police Station Jauhar Town, against deceased. I do not know that he was involved in F.I.R. No.655 of 99 under section 186 Police Station Shandara. I have no knowledge that he was involved in F.I.R. No.8 of 2000 under section 506, P.P.C. Police Station Shandara.... We have also noted that from the circumstances of the case it is not known as to what exactly happened between the appellant and the deceased immediately prior to the occurrences, therefore, in our view the learned trial Court was justified in awarding imprisonment for life to the appellant. Apart from above, the question of discretion in awarding sentence to the accused as Tazir in a case of "Qatl-e-and" came up for consideration before the August Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Iftikharul Hassan v. Israr Bashir and another (PLD 2007 SC 111). In the said judgment, at page 119, the learned Apex Court has been pleased to hold as under:-- The difference of punishment for Qatl-e-and as qisas and tazir provided under sections 302(a) and 302(b), P.P.C. Respectively is that in a case of qisas, Court has no discretion in the matter of sentence whereas in case of tazir Court may award either of the sentence provided under section 302(b), P.P.C. And exercise of this direction in the case of sentence of Tazir would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no cavil to the proposition that an offender is absolved from sentence of death by way of qisas if he is minor at the time of occurrence but in a case in which qisas is not enforceable, the Court in a case of Qatl-eamd, keeping in view the circumstances of the case, award the offender the punishment of death or imprisonment for life by way of Tazir. The proposition has also been discussed in Ghulam Muretaza v. State (2004 SCM R 4), Faqir Ullah v. Khalil-uz-Zaman (1999 SCM R 2203), Muhammad Akram v. State (2003 SCM R 855) and Abdus Salam v. State (2000 SCM R 338)."
The above view was reiterated in another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Sharafat Ali Khan v. The State (2010 SCM R 1205), wherein, at page 1209, the august Court was pleased to observe as under:- "In Muhammad Riaz and another v. The State (2007 SCM R 1413) while considering the penalty for an act of commission of qatl-e-and it was observed "no doubt normal penalty for an act of commission of qatl-e-and provided under law is death, but since life imprisonment also being a legal sentence for such offence must be kept in mind wherever the facts and circumstances warrant mitigation of sentence, because no hard and fast rule can be applied in each and every case. Reference in the context may also be made to Iftikhar Ahmed Khan v. Asghar Khan and another (2009 SCM R 502)".
15. However, we have noted that along with the amount of compensation, appellant has also been directed by the learned trial Court to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lac) which is not permissible under the law, therefore, this amount of fine is set aside. The direction of the learned trial Court that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000 (Rupees three lac only) as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased is hereby maintained in default whereof the appellant shall further undergo six months' S.I. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for the grant of benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Which has been withheld by the learned trial Court which prayer, for reasons mentioned above, has force, therefore, the appellant is extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Because no convincing reason has been given by the learned trial Judge qua withholding the said benefit to the appellant. In view of what has been discussed above, Criminal Appeal No.1287 of 2005 (Muhammad Rehan Khan v. The State) and Criminal Revision No.616 of 2005 (Syed Muhammad Saleem Shah v. Muhammad Behan Khan and others) are dismissed with the above modifications.. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.