ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Criminal Appeal No, 224 of 2014 According to the prosecution Afzal Hussain appellant had committed the murder of one Sherasab and had caused injuries to Sohail Khan complainant at about 08.15 p.m. On 2.1.2004 in Mohallah Tauheed Abad situated within the area of Police Station Sahara Kahu, District Islamabad and after a full-dressed trial the appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for an offence under section 302(b), PPC and was sentenced to death and to pay compensation. He was also convicted by the Trial Court for an offence under section 337- A(i), PPC and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. On appeal the High Court maintained the appellant's convictions and his other sentence but reduced his sentence of death to imprisonment for life on the charge of murder. Hence, the present appeal by leave of this Court granted on 30.5.2011 for the purposes of reappraisal of the evidence.
2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties we have gone through the record of the case and have found that according to the FIR as well as the site-plan of the place of occurrence the incident in issue had taken place outside the appellant's house and the appellant had himself sustained injuries during the selfsame incident which injuries had been suppressed' by the complainant party not only in the FIR but also during the depositions of the eye-witnesses before the Trial Court. In his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant had maintained that .It was the complainant party which had launched aggression against him at the relevant date, time and place. The date, time and place of the occurrence as well as his own participation in the same had not been disputed by the appellant before the Trial Court but he had not admitted his causing of injuries to the deceased and the complainant and, thus, he had not taken any plea of self-defence or grave and sudden provocation. The case of the prosecution was supported by the injured complainant as well as the medical evidence and both the Courts below had concurred in their conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its allegations regarding causing of injuries by the appellant to the deceased and the injured complainant. In the circumstances of the case the injuries sustained by the appellant having been suppressed by the prosecution could make out a good case for mitigation of the appellant's sentence but he could not claim acquittal on the basis of any plea which he had not even advanced. In this view of the matter we have found the concurrent findings of the Courts below regarding guilt of the appellant having been established beyond reasonable doubt to be findings which are not open to any legitimate exception. The sentence of death passed against the appellant by the Trial Court has already been reduced to imprisonment for life and no further reduction in his sentence of imprisonment is legally permissible. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Criminal Appeal No, 223 of 2011
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record we have observed that the Sentence of death passed by the Trial Court against respondent No, 1 had been reduced by the High Court to imprisonment for life and some reasons had been recorded by the High Court in support of such reduction. Upon our own independent evaluation of the evidence we have found that the motive set up by the prosecution had not been established by it through any independent evidence, the injuries sustained by respondent No, 1 namely Afzal Hussain during the selfsame incident had completely been suppressed by the prosecution at all stages of this case, the hatchet allegedly recovered from the custody of respondent No, 1 during the investigation was not stained with blood and for giving a blow on the head of Sherasab deceased respondent No, 1 had not used the sharp side of his hatchet and had also not repeated the blow. All these circumstances were sufficient to put the Court to caution vis-a-vis the sentence to be passed against respondent No, 1 and, thus, no legitimate exception has been taken by us to reduction of the sentence of death passed by the Trial Court against respondent No, 1 to imprisonment for life by the High Court. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.