' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---For committing the murder of one Muhammad Jameel at about 07.15 a.m. On 23.11.1994 Muhammad Azhar alias Ajja appellant and some others were booked and tried in case FIR No, 613 registered at Police Station Uggoki, District Sialkot at 09.30 a.m. On the same day for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. Read with section 34, P.P.C. And vide judgment dated 11.06.1997 handed down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot the appellant was convicted for an offence under section 302(a), P,P.C. And was sentenced to death and to pay a sum of Rs, 50,000/- to the heirs of the deceased by way of compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence before the Lahore High Court, Lahore through Criminal Appeal No, 327 of 1997 which was heard by a learned Division Bench of the said Court along with Murder Reference No, 119 of 1997 seeking confirmation of the sentence of death passed against the appellant and vide judgment dated 09.04.2002 the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, his conviction for an offence under section 302(a), P.P.C. Was converted into his conviction for an offence under section 302(b), P.P.C., the sentence of death passed against him was confirmed, the order passed by the trial court regarding payment of compensation by the appellant to the heirs of the deceased was maintained and it was ordered that in default of payment of compensation the appellant would undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The Murder Reference was, thus, answered in the affirmative and the sentence of death passed against the appellant, was confirmed. Hence, the present appeal by leave of this Court granted on 06.01.2016.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with their assistance. After arguing the matter at some length vis-a-vis the merits of the appellant's case the learned counsel for the appellant has finally submitted that he prays only for reduction of the appellant's sentence from death to imprisonment for life in view of some peculiarities of this case having a bearing upon the appellant's sentence. As against that the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing for the State has submitted that as long as the appellant's conviction is not disturbed by this Court he-has nothing much to say on the question of the appellant's sentence as the said question lies within the discretion of the Court.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record we have attended to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding reduction of the appellant's sentence and have straightaway observed that the motive set up by the prosecution had not been established by it through any concrete evidence and the allegation leveled by the prosecution in that respect had failed to travel beyond a mere verbal assertion. We have pointedly noticed that Bashir Ahmed complainant (PW9) had clearly stated before the trial court that the motive set up by the prosecution revolving around alleged teasing of some girls by the appellant was directed against the complainant himself and not against Muhammad Jameel deceased. The record also shows that no date or time of the alleged incident forming the motive had been specified by any of the prosecution witnesses nor any such incident had ever been reported to the police or to any other authority. In this backdrop we have been surprised to find that the courts below had concurrently concluded that the motive set up by the prosecution had been proved by it. It has further been noticed by us that the alleged recovery of a firearm from the appellant's custody during the investigation had remained legally inconsequential because no crime-empty had been secured from the place of occurrence so as to connect the recovered weapon with the murder in issue. The statement made by the appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. Showed that in the year 1997 the appellant was about twenty years of age and the occurrence in this case had taken place in the year 1994 which indicated that the appellant would be less than eighteen years of age at the time of the occurrence and, thus, he could not have been sentenced to death. As if this were not enough, we have noticed that the appellant has remained behind the bars in connection with this case for the last about 22 years and if the normal remissions admissible to a convict sentenced to imprisonment for life are to be counted towards his sentence then the appellant must have served a period of imprisonment by now which is more than a normal sentence of imprisonment for life. In the peculiar backdrop of the above mentioned mitigating circumstances available in this case this factor may also be considered to be providing a basis for reduction of the appellant's sentence of death to imprisonment for life and in this respect a reference may be made to the cases of Hassan and others v. The State and another (PLD 2013 SC 793), Dilawar Hussain v. The State (2013 SCM R 1582), Khalid Iqbal and 2 others v. Mirza Khan and others (PLD 2015 SC 50) and Muhammad Arshad v. The State (2015 SCM R 258).
4. For what has been discussed above this appeal is dismissed to the extent of the appellant's conviction for an offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. But the same is partly allowed to the extent of C his sentence of death which is reduced to imprisonment for life. The order passed against the appellant regarding payment of compensation by him to the heirs of the deceased is maintained but it is clarified that in default of payment of compensation he shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months rather than rigorous imprisonment for the said period ordered by the High Court. The benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Shall be extended to the appellant. This appeal is disposed of in these terms. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.