' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---In the occurrence in question, one Rashid, a Naik in the Rangers, had fired at a co-employee of the Rangers, namely, Inayat, Naik with his official G-3 rifle killing him at the spot. The occurrence had been witnessed by the complainant Hawaldar Ameer Haider (P.W.I), Naik Asghar Ali (P.W.2) and Lance Naik Noor Muhammad (P.W.3). On the strength of the testimony offered by the natural and independent witnesses and also on account of the judicial confession made by him that he was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And was punished with death which sentence was then confirmed by the High Court. Leave to appeal had been granted to consider only the quantum of punishment deserved by the said appellant.
2. The eye-witnesses could not throw any light on the reason which had led Rashid appellant to shoot at Inayat deceased. However, it was the said appellant himself, through his statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., who had given the said reason leading to the said murder. The appellant had explained that Inayat deceased had made a false complaint against him to Ameer, Haider Hawaldar (P.W.1) saying that the appellant was refusing to carry the breakfast for the other soldiers in defiance of the instructions of Inayat deceased. The appellant added that after this false complaint had been made by Inayat deceased, he and the said deceased continued serving breakfast to the other members of the staff and it was at about 6-45 a.m. When they were returning to the barrack that the appellant lost his head and felt annoyed with Inayat deceased, who had levelled false allegations against him; that the appellant saw the said deceased coming from the other side which further enraged him whereupon he picked up his official G-3 rifle and fired shots at the said deceased.
3. The conduct and act of the appellant, who belonged to a disciplined force and was entrusted with an official assault rifle meant for the purposes of the State, in showing such a recklessness and callous and disregard for a colleague and that also not on an immediate reaction to the allegedly false complaint but after almost 45 minutes of the making of the said allegedly false complaint when he had time to cool down, is not a type of conduct which could invoke sympathy or leniency for him. In the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the imposition of the said sentence of death as confirmed by the High Court. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.