MUHAMMAD ZAFARULLAH, J.---Mohammad Shafiq appellant was 16 when the occurrence took place. He was unhappy when the daughter of Nur Ilahi P. W. Whom he wanted to marry was engaged with the deceased, Mohammad Younus 18. According to the prosecution the appellant took the deceased with him on some pretext in the evening of 7th June, 1976 and shot him dead with a revolver at 7 p. m. In an open, place in Ghar Ahmadabad a subrub of Gujrat city. Bashir Ahmad P. W. 10, Mohammad Younus P. W. 11 and Mohammad Sarwar (not produced) saw the occurrence from some distance. They tried to apprehend the appellant but the appellant made good his escape. Mohammad Sarwar informed Mehr 'Ghulam Nabi P. W. 7 the father of the deceased about the occur--rence and Mehr Ghulam Nabi P. W. Reported the matter the same day at 8-30 p.m. At the Police Station, Saddar Gujrat. The police station is 11 miles away from the place of occurrence: The appellant was arrested on 8th June, 1976. On the following day revolver P. 5 containing one live and 5 empty cartridges was recovered at the instance of the appellant lying under a box in the workshop of the father of the appellant. The appellant was tried for the murder of Mohammad Younus and convicted under section 302, P. P. C. And sentenced to death by the judgment of Ch. Anwar Ali, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, dated 19th May, 1979. The appellant has preferred an appeal against the conviction and sentence. This judgment will dispose of his appeal along with the Murder Reference received from the Sessions Court for confirmation of the sentence of death.
2. The appellant denied his involvement in the occurrence. During cross-examination it was suggested to the witnesses that occurrence took place in the dark hours of the night and the deceased was killed by some unknown person and that the appellant was roped in on account of suspicion. It was also brought on record that an uncle of the deceased was involved in some criminal cases and that the father of the deceased was pursuing those cases thus suggesting that the father of the deceased had a number of enemies anyone of whom may have committed the murder of the deceased.
3. The learned counsel has argued that the trial Court has erred in relying on the evidence of the eye-witnesses because their evidence finds no support from the medical evidence. It has been suggested by the learned counsel that the injuries on the person of the deceased might have been caused by single shot fired from a cartridge and not by the revolver as has been deposed' to by the eye-witnesses. He has also questioned the credibility of the ocular testimony.
4. The learned counsel relies on the opinion of the doctor that the injuries caused to the deceased were the result of a close range firing. It has been argued that the range in all the injuries being similar it was not likely that the 5 injuries were caused by separate shots. On the other hand, it may be seen that each one of the 5 injuries finds black area of diameter which could be caused by unburnt powder accompanying the projectile. If the injuries were the result of a single shot from a cartridge the blackening caused by unburnt powder would have been found on the entire area of the 5 injuries evenly spread. The doctor, however, found that the black area was confined to a --" diameter on each of the injuries This could be possible only if these were 5 different shots, each bullet, carrying its own powder with it. The prosecution story that the 5 injuries were caused by a revolver which was recovered at the instance of the appellant, therefore, finds adequate support from the eye--witnesses.
5. As regards the credibility of the eye-witnesses the objection of the learned counsel that the two eye-witnesses were merely chance witnesses is not enough to reject their evidence. No doubt Mohammad Younus P. W. 11 is related to the deceased as a sister of the P. W. Is married to a brother bf the deceased but this relationship came into being some time after the present occurrence.
Mohammad Younus P. W. Was, therefore;" not related to the deceased when he was cited as a witness in the F. I. R. Mohammad Bashir P. W. Is a Meter Reader and is working for WAPDA. He lives at a distance of 1 --furlongs from the place of occurrence. There is no reason why, he should depose against the appellant unless he is stating the truth. The ocular evidence, therefore, cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the witnesses happened to be near the place of occurrence only by chance when it took place.
6. The question of sentence has agitated our minds. The appellant was only 16 when the occurrence took place. He was obviously not, pleased with the world when the girl whom he wanted to marry was engaged with the deceased, another young man of his baradri. He took a desperate and a very rash step in eliminating the deceased, but considering his youth and his state of mind on learning that he was losing the girl of his dreams, the sentence of death is not the proper sentence. Therefore, while we find no force in the appeal and dismiss it, the sentence is reduced to that of imprisonment for life. We; have also considered the provisions of section 382-B but we do not think any further concession is due to the appellant because we have already reduced the sentence from death to that of imprisonment for life. The sentence of death is not confirmed.
7. The complainant in the case had filed a revision petition No. 538 of 1979 seeking the revision of the judgment to the extent of imposition of fine and payment of compensation. It is true that no fine has been imposed in this case and also no compensation has been awarded but we do not think any interference is called for in that regard at this stage. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed.
Death sentence not confirmed