' MALIK SHAHZAD AHMAD KHAN, J.---Qamar Ejaz, the appellant along with his co-accused Master Ejaz Ahmad was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, in case F.I.R. No,647, dated 6-10-2004, registered under sections 302, 324, 337-F(v), 34 of P.P.C., at Police Station, Satellite Town, Gujranwala, for the murder of Muhammad Azam (deceased). The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 6-2-2006 acquitted co-accused Master Ejaz Ahmad of the charge framed against him, whereas the appellant was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. As Ta'zir and he was sentenced to death. He was further directed to pay Rs,.2,00,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, and in default thereof, to further undergo 6 months' S.I. The appellant was also convicted under section, 337-F(iii) of P.P.C., and was awarded punishment of Daman amounting to Rs,.2,000, for having inflicted injury to Mst. Fqbal Bibi (P.W.11), and in case of default thereof to undergo two months' S.I.
2. The appellant has filed Criminal Appeal No,208 of 2006 against his conviction and sentence, whereas, the learned trial Court has sent Murder Reference No,653 of 2006 under section 374, Cr.P.C., to this Court for confirmation or otherwise of death sentence of the appellant. We propose to dispose of both these matters by this single judgment as all these matters have arisen out of the same judgment/case.
3. Brief facts of the case as given by the complainant Muhammad Ashiq (P.W.10) in his complaint (Exh.PA) are that he (the complainant) had a video shop at Tehsil Road, Gujranwala, whereas, his brother Muhammad Azam had also established a vegetable shop, next to his shop. On 5-10-2004, at 9-30 p.m., he along with his mother Mst. Iqbal Bibi, brother Muhammad Azam and one Muhammad Tariq alias Ali, were sitting on a plank, outside the shop of Muhammad Azam. All of a.
Sudden, the appellant Qamar Ejaz while armed with .30 bore pistol, along with his co-accused Master Ejaz Ahmad, who was empty-handed, emerged at the place of occurrence. Master Ejaz Ahmad raised lalkara' that Muhammad Azam be taught a -lesson for demanding money and disgracing them, upon which, Qamar Ali accused made 4/5 fire shots with his pistol hitting Muhammad Azam on his chest, left side of his belly and left arm, who fell down on the ground. The appellant Qamar Ejaz again made a fire shot hitting Mst. Iqbal Bibi, (P.W.11) on the index finger of her right hand. The complainant party raised hue and cry, on which, the accused fled away, towards their house. The complainant has further stated that both the above-mentioned injured were taken to Civil Hospital, Gujranwala, from where, Muhammad Azam was referred to Mayo Hospital, Lahore, due to his precarious condition, whereas, his mother Mst. Iqbal Bibi (P.W.11) was discharged from the hospital after providing her medical treatment. Muhammad Azam, later on died on 8-10-2004.
' The motive for the occurrence was that 8/10 days prior to the occurrence a "Punchayat" was convened regarding a money dispute and on 10-10-2004, it was to be convened for the second time, but the accused had taken it as their insult and due to that grudge they committed qatl-e- amd of Muhammad Azam and injured Mst. Iqbal Bibi, in furtherance of their common 'intention.
4. After completion of investigation, the challan was submitted. The appellant and his co-accused master Ejaz Ahmad were charge-sheeted, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 16 P.Ws. And also tendered documentary evidence. Initially, Dr. Iftikhar Hussain, (P.W.6) medically examined Muhammad Azam (deceased) and noted following injuries on his person but referred Muhammad Azam to Mayo Hospital, Lahore due to his critical condition:--
(1) Fire arm wound 1.5 x 1 c.m. With inverted margins on left mid axillary line , 7 c.m. Below the axilla, going deep.
(2) Fire arm wound 1.5 x 2 c.m. Of entry on the front of left fore arm middle part.
(3) Fire arm wound 1 x 1 c.m exit of injury No,2 on outer side of left fore arm lower part.
(4) Fire arm entry wound 1.5 x 1 c. m on front of left abdomen, 9 c.m above umbilical line and vertical in nipple line.
(5) Fire arm wound 2.5 x 2 c.m on left front of abdomen, 6 c.m above injury No,4.
(6) 3 x 2 c.m glancing wound on inner side of left arm upper part.
' ('P.W.9) Dr. Mansoor Abbas on 9-10-2004 at 12-15 p.m. Conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Azam (deceased) vide Post mortem Report Exh.P-J and Diagram Exh.P-J/1 and found the following injuries on his person:--
(1) A midline surgically made incisional wound extending from xiphoid process to below umbilicus containing thirteen stitches of silk thread;
(2) A wound of entry 2 x 1-1/4 c.m x going deep covered with pus on left mid axillary line 7 c.m below axilla (surgically modified wound mentioned in MLR as injury No,1).
(3) A fire arm lacerated wound of entry debrided surgically measuring 3 x 4 c.m x going deep circular in shape containing 2 silk stitches on front of left side of abdomen upper part 6-1/2 c.m from anterior midline 8 c.m above from umbilicus (surgically modified wound mentioned in MLR as injury No,4).
(4) A fire arm lacerated wound of entry debrided surgically measuring, 3-1/2 x 2-1/2 c.m x going deep circular in shape 7 c.m below the left nipple and 3-1/4 c.m above injury No,3 on front of left side of abdomen (surgically modified wound as mentioned in MLR as injury No,5).
(5) A fire arm lacerated wound of entry measuring 1.5 c. m x 2 c. m x going deep covered with pus on front of left fore arm middle part (mentioned in MLR as injury No,2).
(6) A fire arm lacerated wound of exit 1 c. m x 1 c. m with everted margins covered with pussy fluid on outer side of left fore arm lower part (mentioned in MLR as injury No,3).
(7) A fire arm lacerated wound through and through glancing in nature measuring 3-1/2 x 2-1/2 c.m muscle deep covered with pus on inner side of left upper arm middle part (surgically modified wound mentioned in MLR as injury No,6).
(8) A lacerated wound 3 x 1-1/2 c.m x` bone' exposed covered with pus on middle part of middle finger of right hand (not mentioned in MLR).
(9) A surgical wound for drain tube measuring 1-1/2 x 1 c.m on left side of chest upper part and on lateral side.
(10) A surgical wound for drain tube measuring 1-1/2 x 1 c.m on front of abdomen middle part, 9- 1/2 c.m from umbilicus on right hypochondria! Area.
7
(11) A surgical made wound for drain tube measuring 1-1/2 x 1 c.m in hypogastrik area 5 c. m from anterior midline.
(12) A surgical made wound for drain tube measuring 1-1/2 x 1 c.m on right side of chest upper part on lateral side.
' In his opinion, all the injuries mentioned-above were ante-mortem in nature. The cause of death in this case was due to septicemia shock due to the complication of injuries Nos.2, 3 and 4 and their sequelae, which were caused by some fire-arm weapon and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was 72 to 76 hours and between death and post mortem was 12 to 16 hours. Dr. Shazia Bhutta (P.W.2) on 16-10- 2004 at 1-15 p.m. Medically examined Mst. Iqbal Bibi P.W.11 vide MLR Exh.P-B.
' (P.W.14) Fazal-ur-Rehman SI and (P.W.15) Munir Ahmad SI are the Investigating Officers of this case who completed the investigation and submitted the challan.
' P.W.1 Ahmad Ali ASI, P.W.4 Muhammad Ashfaq C-736, P.W.8 Masood Ahmad Bhatti, Draftsman, P.W.12 Akhlaq Ahmad HC-1727, P.W.13 Munir Ahmad C-338, and P.W.16 Ibrar Hussain C-2669 are the formal witnesses. P.W.10 Muhammad Ashiq.And P.W.11 Mst. Iqbal Bibi are the witnesses of ocular account. P.W.5 Manzoor Hussain is the recovery witness of empties P-2/1-4 vide recovery memo Exh.PE, whereas, Muhammad Yousaf constable P.W.7 is the recovery witness of pistol .30 bore P-3 through recovery memo Exh.P-G.
5. The statement of the appellant under section, 342 of Cr.P.C. Was recorded: He refuted the allegations levelled against him and professed his innocence. In answer to the question, why this case against you and why the P. Ws. Have deposed against you, the appellant replied as under:-- "1 have been falsely involved in this case due to civil litigation and enmity between the Rarties."
' The appellant did not opt to make statement on oath as envisaged under section 340(2) of Cr.P.C.
In disproof of the allegations levelled against him. Anyhow, he produced documentary evidence in his defence in the shape of copy of F.I.R. No,301 of 2001 (Exh.DA), appeal titled as "Shahab Din v.
Master Sher Muhammad Khan" (Exh.DB), order dated 10-10-1984 (Exh.DC), decree sheet dated 28-1- 1971 (Exh.DD), decree sheet dated 15-4-1971 (Exh.DE), application titled as Master Muhammad Sher Khan v. Shahhab Din (Exh.DF), appeal titled as "Shahab Din v. Sakina Bibi etc." (Exh.DG), application for compromise (Exh.DH), order dated 10-12-1995 (Exh.DJ), compromise (Exh.DK), order passed in W.P. No,5563 of 1984 (Exh.DL) and order dated 2-9-1991 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan (Exh.DM) and closed his evidence.
' After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court, convicted the appellant, as detailed above, whereas co-accused Master Ejaz Ahmad was acquitted of the charge framed against him.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant, in support of this appeal, contends that the ocular account was furnished by the related and interested witnesses; that it is the case of the complainant in the F.I.R. That the fire shot made by Qamar Ejaz-appellant hit Mst. Iqbal Bibi (P.W.11) on her index finger of right hand, and the same was his case before the learned trial court; that Mst.
Iqbal Bibi, while appearing as (P.W.11) also stated so, but that assertion of the complainant and the witnesses is belied by the medical evidence produced by prosecution itself as Dr. Shazia Bhutta (P.W.2), who medically examined Mst. Iqbal Bibi has categorically stated that the injury was caused to Iqbal Bibi with blunt weapon; that this witness was not declared hostile and moreover the said Mst. Iqbal Bibi was medically examined on 16-10-2004, i,e, after eleven days of the registration of the F.I.R.; that P. W.11 had been taking different positions regarding her admission in the hospital; that according to the prosecution case she was taken care of, on the day of occurrence, and later on, she was discharged from the hospital, but there was no such 'record available with the prosecution; that the motive in this case was regarding the money dispute, but no detail of money dispute has been provided before the trial court as admitted by Mst. Iqbal Bibi P.W.11; that P.W.11 and the Investigating Officer have categorically stated that no such evidence regarding motive was produced during investigation; that the pistol allegedly taken into possession at the instance of the appellant and empties recovered from the spot were sent together to the FSL on 7-12-2004, therefore alleged recovery of pistol P-3 is inconsequential, thus this appeal be accepted and the appellant may be acquitted from the charge.
7. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently opposed this appeal and has contended that its a brutal murder and the appellant is named in the F.I.R. With specific role of causing fire arm injuries to Muhammad Azam (deceased) and Mst. Iqbal Bibi P.W.11; that the said injuries are supported by the statement of Dr. Iftikhar Hussain (P.W.6), who medically examined the deceased and prepared the MLR of the deceased as (Exh.P.F), as well as by the statement of Dr. Mansoor Abbas (P.W.9), who conducted the post-mortem examination on the person of the deceased and prepared post- mortem report. (Exh.PJ); that the prosecution case is further supported by the recovery of pistol P-3 on the pointation of the appellant and positive report of FSL; that even the motjve part has wrongly been disbelieved by the learned trial court, as the 'complainant was not cross-examined at this point; that the appellant is responsible for causing the death of an innocent person and substitution in such like cases is a rear phenomenon, therefore, this appeal may be dismissed.
8. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence available on record.
9. The occurrence in this case had taken place on 5-10-2004, at about 9-30 p.m. (night) in front of the shop of Muhammad Azam (deceased). The complainant Muhammad Ashiq is real brother of Muhammad Azam (deceased). He had a video shop adjacent to the vegetable shop of Muhammad Azam (deceased). The prosecution in order to prove the ocular account of the occurrence has examined two eye-witnesses namely, Muhammad Ashiq (P.W.10) and Mst. Iqbal Bibi (P.W.11), whereas, the third eye-witness namely Muhammad Tariq alias Ali was given up by the prosecution being unnecessary. Although it was alleged by the prosecution that Mst. Iqbal Bibi (P.W.11) was also injured during the occurrence, and she was medically examined on the same day, but no medical report of the said injured P.W. Was produced in evidence through which she was medically examined on the day of occurrence. She has stated during her cross-examination that she was not medicaily examined at Gujranwala and she was medically examined at Lahore but no evidence regarding her medical examination at Lahore has been brought on the record. Her only medical examination, which has been placed on record, was conducted by Dr. Shazia Bhutta, (P.W.2) W.M.O., DHQ Hospital Gujranwala on 16-10-2004 i,e, with the delay of eleven days. According to the statement of Dr. Shazia Bhutta (P.W.2), as well as, according to the MLR (Exh.PB) of the above- mentioned witness, injury on the index finger of Mst. Iqbal Bibi was caused by a blunt weapon: The above -mentioned P.W. Has not stated that the injury on the person of Mst. Iqbal Bibi (P.W.11) was caused by a fire arm weapon. The story regarding injury sustained by Mst. Iqbal Bibi (P, W.11) through fire-arm weapon at the hands of the appellant, has not been supported by the medical evidence. Moreover, Mst. Iqbal Bibi (P.W.11) is a female and the prosecution has not given any cogent and convincing reason of her presence at the vegetable shop of Muhammad Azam (deceased) at night time i,e, 9-30 p.m. She did not make any statement before police at the day of occurrence i,e, 5-10-2004. She has admitted in her cross-examination that her statement was recorded by the police on 9-10-2004. There is no plausible and convincing explanation regarding the above-mentioned delay of 4-days in getting her statement recorded before the police. In view of the above, we hold that, the case of prosecution to the extent of presence of Mst. Iqbal Bibi at the time of occurrence and sustaining injury at the index finger of her right hand at the hands of the appellant, has not been established beyond the shadow of doubt, therefore, the conviction and sentence of Daman amount of Rs,.2,000 and imprisonment of one year under section, 337-F(iii) of P.P.C. Awarded to the appellant, is, hereby, set aside, and the appellant Qamar Ejaz is acquitted from the charge under section 337-F(iii) of P.P.C.
10. As we have disbelieved the evidence of Mst. Iqbal Bibi (P.W.11), therefore, the ocular evidence of the prosecution only hinges upon the statement of Muhammad Ashiq (P.W.10), who had a video shop adjacent to the vegetable shop of Muhammad Azam (deceased). His presence at the spot is quite natural. According to his statement, the fire shots made by the appellant landed on the left side of chest, belly and on left arm of Muhammad Azam (deceased). The complainant (P.W.10) was cross-examined at length, but his evidence to the extent of role attributed to the appellant and injuries sustained by the deceased, could not be shattered during cross-examination. The prosecution has also produced Dr. Iftikhar Hussain as (P. W.6), who had medically examined Muhammad Azam (deceased) through MLR (Exh.PF) and diagram (Exh.PF/1). The medical examination of Muhammad Azam (deceased) was conducted by P.W.6 on 5-10-2004, at 9-15 p.m., and he found the following injuries on the person of Muhammad Azam (deceased):--
(1) Fire arm wound 1.5 x 1 c.m with inverted margins on left mid axillary line , 7 c.m below the axilla, going deep.
(2) Fire arm wound 1.5 x 2 c.m of entry on the front of left fore arm middle part.
(3) Fire arm wound 1 x 1 c.m exit of injury No,2 on outer side of left fore arm lower part.
(4) Fire arm entry wound 1.5 x I can on front of left abdomen, 9 c.m above umbilical line and vertical in nipple line.
(5) Fire arm wound 2.5 x 2 c.m on left front of abdomen, 6 c.m above injury No,4.
(6) 3 x 2 c.m glancing wound on inner side of left arm upper part.
' According to the statement of said witness; all the injuries were caused by fire arm weapon, and were fresh in duration. He referred the deceased to Mayo Hospital, Lahore, due to his serious condition.
' Dr.Mansoor Abbas (P.W.9) conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Azam (deceased) on 9-10-2004 through post-mortem report (Exh.P.J), and pictorial sketch (Exh.PJ/1). He noted the injuries on the dead body of Muhammad Azam (deceased) as per detail given in para No,4 supra. His evidence is also in line with the evidence of Dr. Iftikhar Hussain (P.W.6).
' Both the above-mentioned witnesses were also cross-examined at length by the learned defence counsel, but nothing favourable to the accused/ appellant could be brought on record. Thus, the ocular account furnished by Muhammad Ashiq (P.W.10) is fully supported by the above-mentioned medical evidence.
11. By now it is settled proposition of law that in criminal cases, it is the quality and not quantity of evidence, which is to be considered while deciding a case, and if the evidence of a sole witness is confidence inspiring and trustworthy, then the same can safely be relied upon for conviction.
Reference in this context may be made to the cases of Dildar Hussain v. Muhammad Afzaal alias Chala and 3 others (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 663), Farooq Khan v. The State (2008 SCM R 917), and Mst. Amina Bibi v. Noor Ahmad and 10 others (2007 A.C. 764 SC).
12. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that Muhammad Ashiq (P.W.10) is real brother of the deceased, and because he is a related witness; therefore, his testimony cannot be relied upon. We are afraid; we cannot agree with the above argument of the learned counsel for the appellant because mere relationship of a prosecution witness with deceased is not sufficient to discard his evidence out-rightly. If the presence of a related witness at the time of occurrence is natural, and his evidence is straightforward, confidence-inspiring and trustworthy, then the same can be safely relied upon to award punishment to an accused. In this case, Muhammad Ashiq (P.W.10) was running a video shop, which was adjacent to the vegetable shop of Muhammad Azam (deceased), therefore, his presence at the time of occurrence, at the spot, was quite natural. His testimony has also been supported by medical evidence. He stood the test of lengthy cross- examination, but, his evidence could not be shattered, therefore, his testimony cannot be rejected merely on the ground of his relationship with the deceased.
There is another aspect of the case. The complainant Muhammad Ashiq (P.W.10) is real brother of Muhammad Azam (deceased). It is not possible that he will falsely implicate the appellant and would let off the real culprit. Substitution in such-like cases is a rare phenomenon.
13. The prosecution has also produced the evidence of recoveries of empties and pistol in this case.
According to the prosecution case, four empties were recovered from the place of occurrence on 6-10-2004.
' Manzoor Hussain (P.W.5) is the witness of the said crime empties P.2/1-4, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Exh.PE. The appellant was arrested in this case on 9-10-2004, and according to the prosecution case, he got the pistol (P.3) recovered on 24-10-2004. According to the report of FSL, pistol and four crime empties were delivered together at FSL on 7-12-2004, therefore, it is not safe to rely on the recovery of pistol and report of FSL.
14. Insofar as the evidence of motive against the appellant is concerned, it was alleged in the F.I.R.
(Exh.PA/1) that there was a money dispute and 8/10 days prior to the occurrence, a Punchayat was also convened to resolve the above-mentioned dispute. The nature and details of money dispute between the deceased and the appellant, have not been mentioned in the F.I.R. It was candidly conceded by Mst. Iqbal Bibi (P.W.11) during her cross-examination that no proof regarding the money dispute between the deceased and the appellant was produced by the prosecution side during the investigation. She has also admitted that she had no knowledge regarding the exact amount, which was involved in the above-mentioned dispute. Similarly, Munir Ahmad SI (P.W.15), who was the Investigating Officer of this case, has also conceded that no evidence was produced during investigation by the complainant party about the motive part of prosecution story, to demonstrate that what was the nature of the dispute between the appellant and the deceased. He has also admitted that no evidence was produced by the complainant as to who was present at the time of motive occurrence. No member of Punchayat' was produced during investigation or during the trial, therefore motive part as set-forth by the prosecution is, hereby, disbelieved.
15. .The appellant produced defence evidence in the shape of documents Exh.DA to Exh.DM. Exh.DA is the copy of F.I.R. No,301 of 2001 in a murder case in which the deceased Muhammad Azam was nominated as an accused. He was attributed the role of abetment in the said case, whereas, the remaining documents are regarding the civil litigation, which allegedly remained pending between the predecessors of the appellant and the deceased. The said documentary evidence was produced by the appellant in order to establish that the deceased Muhamamd Azam was earlier involved in a criminal case and he (Muhammad Azam) was murdered by some unknown accused, whereas, the appellant was falsely implicated in the instant case due to above-mentioned civil litigation. The appellant was himself not a party in the above-mentioned civil or criminal litigation.
We have already discussed that substitution is a rare phenomenon, therefoie, we hold that the above-mentioned defence evidence is not helpful to the appellant.
16. However, if the evidence of motive and recovery is excluded from consideration, even then there is sufficient incriminating evidence available on record against the appellant. As discussed earlier, the prosecution case was fully established through evidence of eye-witness Muhammad Ashiq (P.W.10). He stood the test of lengthy cross-examination, but his evidence could not be shattered by the learned defence counsel. The evidence of said witness is quite natural, straightforward and confidence-inspiring. The ocular account of the prosecution as given by Muhammad Ashiq (P.W.10), is fully supported by the evidence of Dr. Iftikhar Hussain (P.W.6) and Dr. Mansoor Abbas (P.W.9), as well as, by Medico-legal Report of Muhammad Azam (deceased) Exh.P.F, diagram Exh. P.
F/1, his post-mortem report Exh.PJ, and pictorial sketch Exh.PJ/1. The time of occurrence, the kind of weapon of offence used, the number and seat of injuries as given by the above-mentioned prosecution witness were fully supported by the above-mentioned medical evidence, therefore, we hold that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of any doubt.
17. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, we may observe that the prosecution has alleged a specific motive, but as discussed earlier the said motive was not proved through any cogent evidence. The story of prosecution regarding raising alkara' by co-accused Master Ejaz Ahmad has already been disbelieved by the learned trial court. He was found innocent by police and thereafter he was acquitted by the learned trial court vide the above-mentioned impugned judgment. It is not determinable in this case as to what had actually happened immediately H before the occurrence, which had resulted into the death of deceased Muhammad Azam, therefore, the death sentence awarded to the appellant Qamar Ejaz is quite harsh. It has been held in a number of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that if a specific motive has been alleged by the prosecution then it is duty of the prosecution to establish the said motive beyond any shadow of doubt and non-proof of motive may be considered a mitigating circumstance in favour of an accused. While treating it a case of mitigation, we have fortified our view by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in the case of Ahmad Nawaz and another v. The State (2011 SCM R 593), wherein, at page 604, the Hon'ble apex Court of the country, has been pleased to lay emphasis as under:- "10. The recent trend of the courts with regard to the awarding of penalty is evident from several precedents. In the case of Iftikhar-ul-Hassan v. Israr Bashir and another (PLD 2007 SC 111), it was held that "This is settled law that provisions of sections 306 to 308, P. P. C. Attracts only in the cases of Qatl-eamd liable to Qisas under section 302(A), P. P. C. And not in the cases in which sentence for Qatl-e-amd has been awarded as Tazir under section 302(b), P.P.C. The difference of punishment for Qatl-e-amd as Qisas and Tazir provided under section 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 SCMR 4), Faqir Ullah v.
Khalil-uzZaman (1999 SCMR 2203), Muhammad Akram v. State (2003 SCMR 855) and Abdus Salam v. State (2000 SCMR 338)". The Court while maintaining the conviction under section 302(b), P.P.C. Awarded him sentence of life imprisonment under the same provision and also granted him the benefit of section 382-B, Cr. P.C. In Muhammad Riaz and another v. The State (2007 SCMR 1413) while considering the penalty for an act of commission of Qatl-e-amd it was observed that "No doubt, normal penalty for an act of commission of Qatl-e-amd 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".
In Iftikhar Ahmad Khan v. Asghar Khan and another (2009 SCMR 502) it has been noted that:---"In other words, the law has conferred discretion upon the Court to withhold the penalty of death and to award the punishment of imprisonment for life, if I the outlook of a particular case requires that course". (underlining, italic and bold supplied).
18. Keeping in view the above-mentioned facts and the principles of safe administration of justice, the conviction of the appellant under section 302(b), of P.P.C. Awarded by the learned trial Court is maintained, but his sentence is altered from death to imprisonment for life. The compensation awarded by the learned trial Court or sentence in default thereof is, hereby, maintained and upheld. The benefit of section 382-B, of Cr.P.C. Is also given to the appellant.
19. Consequently, with the above-mentioned modification in the sentence, Criminal Appeal No,208 of 2006, filed by the appellant, is, hereby, dismissed. Murder Reference No,653 of 2006 is answered in the negative and death sentence of the appellant Qamar Ejaz is not confirmed.