MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.---The listed are two criminal appeals. One preferred by Sardar Muhammad (Appellant in Crl. A. No. 290-L/09, complainant of the case seeking enhancement of sentence of the accused-appellant and the other preferred by the convictAthar Zahoor (Appellant in Crl. A. No. 291-L/09, against his conviction and sentence. Since both are the outcome of the same impugned judgment, therefore this judgment will decide the fate of both the appeals.
The High Court through the impugned judgment while maintaining the conviction of the appellant- Athar Zahoor under section 302(b),P.P.C.converted his death sentence into imprisonment for life with benefit of section 302-B, Cr.P.C. However, compensation awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. was maintained. Murder Reference sent by the trial Court for confirmation of his death sentence was answered in the negative.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present occurrence are that one Sardar Muhammad- Complainant (PW.8), Mazhar Nisar (PW.9), and Zulfiqar Ali brother of the complainant, were going to their shop situated at 66-Futa Bazar, District Faisalabad whereas, Muhammad Imran- urRehman (decd.), son of the complainant, was going ahead of them at some distance when Athar Zahoor-appellant, armed with a .12 bore shotgun, appeared and raised a caution of alert to Imran-ur-Rehman (decd.) that he would not be spared, who out of fear tried to, return back but the convict-appellant at the moment fired at him which landed at back and outer part of left chest having its exist on right side of chest which in the opinion of Dr. Arshad Masood (PW.1) was the cause of death of said Muhammad Imran-ur-Rehman. The occurrence was reported by Sardar Muhammad-complainant (PW.8) at 9.40 a.m. through a promptly lodged FIR No.496 dated 16.08.2002. The convict-appellant was arrested on 23.08.2002. In this case motive for the occurrence was recorded as a quarrel/altercation a day before the occurrence. The complainant- Sardar Muhammad and Mazhar Nisar (PW.9) gave the ocular account as per the FIR whereas the appellant while recording the statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the occurrence by claiming innocence. He further alleged that the PWs being closely related have falsely implicated him besides many enmities and disputes of the deceased with other people and because of his conduct he was fired at by some unknown accused. During the investigation the gun and the empty were recovered and as per FSL report (Exh.PN), the crime, empty was fired from the gun so recovered from the appellant. After a regular trial, he was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. and was sentenced to death with payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and or in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
3. The High Court while dealing with the appeal of the appellant maintained his convictions but reduced his sentence from death to life imprisonment. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellant preferred Criminal Petition No.798-L/09 whereas complainant preferred Criminal Petition No.507-L before this Court. Leave to appeal was granted vide order dated 27.08.2009 in both the petitions in the following terms:- The reasons which had weighed with the High Court in converting the normal penalty of death prescribed for an offence. under under section 302, P.P.C. into a sentence of imprisonment for life i.e. that the culprit had fired only a single shot; that the prosecution had failed to prove the motive and that the occurrence in question was a sudden affair; require examination whether the said grounds actually existed and if so whether they were sufficient for the purpose.
2. In this view, of the matter, Criminal Petition No.507-P of 2009 is allowed and leave granted. Since we have allowed leave to the complainant, therefore, Criminal Petition No.798-L of 2009 is also allowed and- leave granted to the convict."
Hence, the present appeals with the leave of the Court.
4. Learned counsel for the parties were heard and record of the case was perused. Perusal of the same would reveal that the occurrence took place in a broad-day light and was witnessed by the complainant (PW.8) and Mazhar Nisar (PW.9) and they have provided the ocular account of the incident in issue strictly in line with the version given in the FIR. There is no question of mis- identification of the assailant as both the parties were residents of the same area and were known to each other. The convict-appellant completely denied his participation in the occurrence and professed his innocence in his statement under section 342. Cr.P.C. and simultaneously alleged the political rivalries and other enmities of the deceased but could not produce anything on the record in this regard. The recovery of crime weapon on the pointation of appellant and matching of the empty recovered on the day of occurrence is yet another circumstance establishing the involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence. The Courts below, after analyzing the evidence in detail have concurred in their opinion regarding guilt of the appellant and we too have the same opinion regarding guilt of the appellant.
5.As far as the award of death sentence to the appellant by the trial Court and reduction of the same into imprisonment for life by the High Court is concerned, we have observed that the ocular version of the incident produced by the prosecution is consistent and the appellant had failed to shatter and same and the same cannot be ignored only for the reason that there is no enmity with appellant. Even if we ignore the alleged recovery of crime weapon and the empty as the same were sent together for analysis but we cannot ignore that it was a case of single shot without repetition. Motive as alleged was not proved by the prosecution which reflects that occurrence might have the result of sudden affair which fact has been concealed by both the sides. Keeping in view all the above facts make it clear that the High Court was rightly conscious of quantum of sentence and rightly converted the same into life.
6.Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court while dealing with the matter has considered each end every aspect of the matter leaving no room for interference by this Court. Resultantly, both the listed appeals, having no merits, are hereby dismissed.