Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, J.--Appellant along with one another was tried in the case registered vide FIR No. 148 dated 18.6.1997 under Sections 302/109 PPC at Police Station Saddar Burewala for committing murder of Haji Muhammad Aslam. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 24.2.2001 while acquitting the other co-accused, convicted the appellant under Section 302(b), PPC and sentenced him to death. He was also directed to pay compensation amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased, in default whereof to further undergo six months SI. The learned High Court vide impugned judgment maintained the conviction and sentences recorded by the learned trial Court.
2. Facts briefly stated are that the appellant was servant of the deceased Haji Muhammad Aslam and was cultivating the lands of the deceased. The appellant had also borrowed Rs. 13,500/- from the deceased. The appellant wanted to quit service but the deceased told the appellant that he could do so only after clearing his debt. On this point some altercation took place between the appellant and the deceased one week prior to the, occurrence. On the day of occurrence i.e. 18.6.1997 at about 5.30 am. The appellant was irrigating the lands of the deceased when they both again exchanged hot words over the above said dispute. Hamid who was armed with kassi gave a kassi blow on the head of the deceased who tried to stop the same with his left hand but the blow caused injuries on his hand, face and left hand and the blood started oozing. Upon this, the deceased raised alarm and started running but was followed by the accused. The deceased had hardly covered some distance when he fell down with his face towards the earth and the accused then with right side of his kassi gave him kassi blows on the back side of his head, neck and on his ear. Hearing the cries, the complainant, Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Afzal PWs rushed towards the spot but the accused while raising lalkara fled away. The deceased succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Prosecution produced 10 witnesses in order to prove its case.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, for the complainant as also learned Additional Prosecutor General at some length and have gone through the evidence on record.
4. It is a case of promptly lodged FIR. The occurrence took place at 5.30 am. On 18.6.1997 while the FIR was got recorded at 7.15 a.m. Although there was a distance of 13 miles between the place of occurrence and the police station. The ocular account is furnished, by the complainant Mian Manzoor Ahmed PW-6 and Muhammad Akram, PW-8. They remained consistent regarding the material particulars of the case i.e. Date, time, mode and place of occurrence. Their credibility could not be shaken even after lengthy cross-examination. The PWs not only gave a natural narration of the occurrence but they also supported and corroborated each other on all material particulars. They also gave correct number of injuries, their seats and also the weapon used in the crime. They had no prior enmity or motive to, falsely implicate the appellant in the case. Even otherwise, we have not been able to find out any reason as to why the complainant, who was real brother of the deceased, would have falsely implicated the appellant and let off the real culprit.
PWs are admittedly residents of the place where the occurrence took place and their land was contiguous to the land where the occurrence took place. Their presence at that time is also not doubtful as in villages it is common that the villagers and the owners of lands get up early in the morning either to water the lands or just to have a round of their lands. Even otherwise, their presence at the spot has not been questioned by the defence. So far as the question that the PWs are closely related with the deceased is concerned, it is by now a well settled law that a witness would be called an interested witness if it is shown that he had motive for falsely implicating the accused and in absence of such.Motive the evidence of such witnesses would be scrutinized carefully and mere relationship of the witnesses with the deceased alone would not be a ground to discard their testimony. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused after committing the murder threw the kassi and also left his pair. Of shoes there, which were later on recovered by the police from the spot. There is not only complete corroboration in the statements of said PWs about the said fact but their evidence is also fully supported and corroborated by the Investigating Officer who deposed that the weapon of offence and a pair of shoes belonging to the accused were collected by him from the place of occurrence in the presence of PW-8. Report of Chemical Examiner also proved that the kassi was stained with human blood. Medical evidence has also supported the ocular 'account qua the nature, number and seat of injuries. In view of the afore- referred circumstances, the learned Courts below have rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) PPC. However, so far as quantum of punishment is concerned, we have found that it was not a preplanned murder and rather it took place at the spur of the moment when a sudden quarrel took place between the appellant and the deceased. What happened immediately before the occurrence remained shrouded in mystery. As an abundant caution, we are inclined to reduce the sentence of death awarded to the appellant to life imprisonment. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. Is also given to the appellant. However, the compensation amount and the sentence in default whereof is maintained.
5. The above are the detailed reasons of our short order of even date vide which this appeal was partly allowed. The short order reads asunder: "For reasons to be recorded later, the appeal is partially allowed in the terms that the convictions of the appellant is maintained whereas his sentence under Section 302(b), PPC is Modified to imprisonment for life. Benefit under Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is also extended to the appellant."