MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---Amanat Ali (appellant) along with his co-accused namely Gulfam Shahzad, Muhammad Yousaf and Muhammad Shafique was indicted in case FIR No.324/2004 dated 27.04.2000 offence under sections 302 and 109, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Karyanwala, District Gujrat for the murder of Rashid Latif, son of the complainant. Vide judgment dated 31.01.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Gujrat, he was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced to death. He was also directed to pay compensation of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lakh only) to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default thereof he was ordered to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Three co-accused of the appellant namely Gulfam Shahzad, Muhammad Yousaf and Muhammad Shafique were acquitted by the learned trial court.
2. Aggrieved of the judgment passed by the learned trial court, Amanat Ali convict preferred Criminal Appeal No.182 of 2003 whereas the learned trial court sent Murder Reference No.188 of 2003 for confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of death awarded to Amanat Ali convict. Haji Muhammad Latif complainant also filed Criminal Appeal No.283 of 2003 assailing the acquittal of Gulfam Shahzad, Muhammad Yousaf and Muhammad Shafique by the learned trial court. All these matters were heard together by a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court Lahore and through the impugned judgment appeal of the convict was dismissed. Murder Reference was answered in the affirmative and the sentence of death was confirmed. Appeal against acquittal filed by the complainant was also dismissed.
3. Feeling dissatisfied of the judgment passed by the learned appellate court, Amanat Ali convict filed Criminal Petition No. 12-L of 2009 wherein leave was granted vide order dated 21.04.2009.
Hence, this appeal with leave of the court.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge conviction of the appellant, however, he submits that the sentence of death awarded to the appellant be altered to life imprisonment in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
5. In the interest of justice, we have examined the available record, with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Prosecutor General for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant.
6. The unfortunate incident of murder of Rashid Latif (deceased) son of the complainant took place in the mosque. Complainant is not an eye-witness of the occurrence. The ocular account was furnished by Khalid Hussain (PW.3) and Zafar Iqbal (PW.5) who stated that occurrence had taken place after Khatm-e-Quran. Place of occurrence was not disputed by the defence, therefore, if Rashid Latif (deceased) was present at the place of occurrence, presence of both the witnesses of ocular account with the deceased at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted. Both these witnesses attributed two churri blows to the appellant on the person of Rashid Latif (deceased).
The ocular account furnished by both these witnesses is substantially supported by the medical evidence as three incised wounds were observed during the post mortem examination conducted on the dead body of Rashid Latif (deceased). The occurrence took place on 26.12.2000 whereas the appellant was arrested in this case on 05.04.2002 i.e. more than 1-1/4 year. Abscondance of the appellant was proved by producing warrant of arrest with report (Exh.PL/1) and proclamation with report (Exh.PM/1). The prosecution witnesses were not cross-examined qua abscondance of the appellant. Therefore, the prosecution case is further corroborated by the abscondance of the appellant. So, we hold that the prosecution successfully brought home guilt against the convict to the hilt. But at the same time it is not a case of capital punishment because motive was not believed by the learned trial court whereas no findings qua motive were recorded by the learned appellate court. The alleged recovery of knife which was taken into possession vide recovery memo (Exh.PC) as well as the positive reports of Chemical Examiner and Serologist are inconsequential because the said recovery was effected more than one year and three months after the occurrence. Therefore, taking these factors as mitigating circumstances, this appeal is partly allowed and the sentence of death awarded to Amanat Ali (appellant) is altered to imprisonment for life. The amount of compensation payable to the legal heirs of the deceased and the sentence of six months simple imprisonment in default thereof as ordered by the learned trial court and maintained by the learned appellate court is upheld. The appellant is also extended the benefit of section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure.