' EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.---This appeal with the leave of the Court has arisen out of the judgment dated 25.2.2004 of a Division Bench of Baluchistan High Court, Quetta whereby it dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and confirmed the sentence of death awarded by the Trial Court.
2. The points raised and noted at the time of grant of leave read as under:-- "6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned High Court had dis-believed the eyewitnesses qua his acquittal co-accused in paras 14 and 16 of the impugned judgment.
Therefore, the learned High Court was not justified to confirm the sentence of death of petitioner as the statement of such type of witnesses could not be believed without independent corroboration.
He further urges that there is no strong and independent corroboration against petitioner. Mukhtiar Ahmad. He further urges that there are three sets of evidence in the shape .f eye-witnesses who were dis-believed qua his acquitted co-accused, medical evidence and recovery of weapon neither of which alone can be accepted without independent corroboration.- They cannot each in its turn be taken to corroborate the other and join together so as to justify any Court in acting on such evidence. He further urges that recovery was also not proved by the prosecution as the report was secured after considerable delay and recovery of weapon from the petitioner was also doubtful but the Courts below had not adverted to this aspect of the case in its true perspective. He further urges that medical evidence cannot connect the accused, with crime, nor it can support prosecution story. Medical evidence is always used qua number, nature and seats of injuries and it does not give the identity of assailants.
7. The above contentions need consideration.
' Therefore, we grant leave in this petition (1.P. No. 58 Of 2004) to consider the above and the other submissions of the learned counsel of the petitioner.
3. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the FIR and the statements recorded in the Court are that on the date of occurrence Khair Muhammad lodging the report was present in his Dairy Farm at 1:30 a.m., that he on hearing ping of bullets came out of the Farm and saw Mukhtiar Ahmed, armed with Kalashnikov, tire at his father Moulvi Abdur Rasheed on the instigation of Abdul Qadir and Ghulam Rasool who were also standing armed with pistols in a vacant site adjoining the place of occurrence: His. Father on having been hit fell down and went unconscious. He was taken to the hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries. The motive for the occurrence was a dispute over a piece of land which despite settlement left the parties unhappy. Trial and Appellate Court disbelieved the motive and commission of the crime at the instigation of Abdul Qadir and Ghulam Rasool, yet the former awarded and the latter confirmed the sentence of death while, acquitting the co-accused Abdul Qadir and Ghulam Rasool.
' Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellent in the first instance by referring to minor discrepancies in the statements of the PWs sought to make out a case for acquittal of the appellant but when sensed that the aforesaid discrepancies cannot earn him the desired 'end, he straight-away asked for 'reduction in sentence by arguing that motive set up by the prosecution has not been proved on the record.
5. Learned Addl. Prosecutor General, Balochistan appearing on behalf of the State by taking us through evidence on the record Mough successfully projected that the charge against the appellant has been proved beyond doubt but could not effectively refute the assertion of the learned counsel for the appellant for reduction in sentence and rightly so because the motive set up in the FIR has not been proved. Similarly the story that the appellant fired at the deceased on the instigation c of Abdul Qadir and Ghulam Rasool, has not been proved on the record that is why they were acquitted by the Court of Appeal. The part attributed to the appellant in the commission of crime cannot be doubted as the account furnished by the PWs is consistent, credible and confidence inspiring. Minor discrepancies so-called highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be given much weight as they are apt to C occur in die statements of the witnesses who are Perfectly honest on account of difference in their power of perception, retention and 'reproduction. Matching of empties recovered from the spot with the kalashnikove recovered from the possession of the appellant soon after the occurrence further corroborates the charge against him. Medical evidence which is in line with the ocular account also supports the latter. We, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that the charge against the appellant has been proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. However, we, in the circumstances of the case, are not inclined to maintain the sentence of death as the motive set up in the FIR has not been proved.
What transpired between the appellant and the deceased and what prompted the former to go to the extreme, of taking the life of the latter is shrouded in mystery. We, therefore, by maintaining the conviction, partially allow the appeal and convert the sentence of death into imprisonment for life.
The appellant shall be entitled ,to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. And other remissions allowed to the prisoners from time to time However, we, in the circumstances of the case enhance the compensation of Rs, 20,000/- to Rs, 1,00,000/-. In case of default the appellant, in addition to any Other mode of recovery, shall suffer six months' S.I.
6. With the above modification, this appeal stands, disposed of.
Death Sentence Reduced to Life Imprisonment.