MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---The appellant was indicted to face trial in case FIR No. 221 dated 18.07.2001, offence under section 302, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Gulberg, Faisalabad. After a full-fledged trial, the learned trial Court convicted him under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced him to death. He was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, in default whereof to undergo RI for two months. The appellant then filed criminal appeal before the learned High Court, which was dismissed vide the impugned order and murder reference was answered in the affirmative, which prompted him to file criminal petition for leave to appeal before this Court, wherein leave was granted by this Court on 24.03.2009.
2. The brief facts of the case are given in Para 2 of the impugned judgment which need not be reproduced here.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, stated that appellant does not intend to challenge his conviction on merits and only prays for reduction in quantum of sentence because it is not a case for capital punishment and there are some mitigating circumstances, which necessarily call for reducing the sentence of death into imprisonment for life. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned Law Officer did not seriously oppose the prayer so made by the appellant.
4. Notwithstanding the aforesaid prayer of the appellant, we have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the available record with their assistance.
5. It has been observed by us that it is a daylight occurrence which took place on 18.07.2001 at 1.30 p.m. The matter was reported to the police on the same day at 2.50 p.m. through the written statement of complainant at Allied Hospital Faisalabad, on the basis whereof formal FIR was registered at 3.20 p.m. The postmortem on the dead body of deceased was conducted by Dr. Arshad Masood (PW5) on the same day at 4.30 p.m. The promptness in reporting the matter to police and then in time postmortem on the dead body of deceased rules out any chance of pre-consult or deliberation. The ocular account was furnished by Tariq Mahmood (PW7) and Pervaiz Iqbal (PW8) who remained consistent on all the material aspects of the case. Their testimony was further supported by the medical evidence adduced by Dr. Arshad Masood (PW5) who observed 17 incised/stab wounds and three abrasions on the dead body of deceased Khalid Mahmood. in his opinion, death occurred due to hemorrhagic shock caused by injuries Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 15 which were sufficient (individually as well as collectively) to cause death in ordinary course of nature; that all injuries were ante mortem; that all the injuries except injuries Nos. 17, 18 and 19 were caused by sharp-edged weapon; that probable time between injury and death was within half an hour and between death and postmortem was 2 to 6 hours. Thus the medical evidence is in line with the ocular account furnished by PW7 and PW8. In these circumstances, we have no manner of doubt in our minds, that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and he has rightly been convicted by the learned Courts below under section 302(b), P.P.C. Having said so, we have observed that the prayer of appellant for reduction in quantum of sentence is not without substance for the reason that the learned High Court has not believed the motive part of the prosecution story in Para 14 of the impugned judgment. In the same vein, the learned High Court has discredited the evidence of recovery in Para 15 of the impugned judgment. On our own independent evaluation, we have observed that the reasons assigned by the learned High Court for discarding the evidence of motive and recovery are valid and convincing. In these circumstances, we have observed that the sentence of death awarded to the appellant by the learned Courts below is rather harsh. Therefore, we partly allow this criminal appeal and while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C., convert the sentence of death into imprisonment for life. The amount of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- imposed by the learned trial Court to be paid to the legal heirs of deceased is maintained. However, the sentence in default of payment of compensation which was awarded by the learned trial Court as two months' RI shall be two months' S.I. Benefit of section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure shall be extended to the appellant. The impugned judgments of the Courts below are modified accordingly.