MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The appellant/convict stood trial on the charge under section 302, P.P.C. vide FIR No.23/2015 registered at Police Station Darel, District Diamer, and after conclusion of trial the learned trial Court handed down the verdict of "guilt" against him. The appellant was convicted and awarded death penalty but no fine has been imposed under section 544-A, Cr.P.C., which was mandatory in nature, though in the appeal filed by the appellant, it finds mentioned there that the fine has been imposed by the learned trial Court.
2. The brief facts of the occurrence have been narrated in the opening part of the judgment order dated 21.9.2017, which are reproduced here under:- "Briefly stated the facts of prosecution case in hand, are that on 15.07.201.5 a case vide FIR No. 23/2015 (Exh.PW -5/J) was registered at Police Station Darel Diamer on the report of complainant Muhammad Abdullah son of Muhammad Sirsyed resident of Samigal Bala Darel (P. W. 1), wherein he alleges that on above date his nephew Suhail Alam son of Syed Nabi resident of Budon Darel had gone to Gumari Bazaar Darel for Eid shopping. At about 6:45 P.M., on the instigation of co-accused namely Raj Alam son of Didar Shah, Khurshed Alam son of Raza resident of Tabora Darel, the principal culprit/accused Syed Alam son of Didar Shah resident of Taboor Darel had opened fire from a .30 bore pistol at Said Suhail Alam who has died on the spot as a result of gun-shot injuries fired by said accused Syed Alam. He further alleged in his application during that the occurrence the accused. namely Samiullah and Habibullah sons of Rehmatullah resident of Gumari Darel also were present along with the said ' principal accused for his aiding and abetting in commission of the murder of Suhail Alam. He also stated that the occurrence has been witnessed by PWs Attaur Rehman son of Syed Nabi resident of Budon Darel and Haji Rehmat son of Narina Khan resident of Samigal Bala Darel. The motive behind the offence has been stated that the accused Syed Alam and his brother Raj Alam were suspecting that the deceased had assisted his maternal uncle namely Izhar Ahmad son of Maqsood in kidnapping of Mst. Nosheen daughter of Zafarullah who was residing in the house of Raj Alam the real brother of principal accused Syed Alam. In this connection FIR No. 01/2015 has been registered at Police Station Darel on complaint of Raj Alam son of Haji Didar Shah the real brother of accused Syed Alam. In the said FIR the deceased Suhail Ahmed have been nominated along with other accused for commission of offence of kidnapping of said Mst. Nosheen. The said criminal case is still pending before SHO Police Station Darel as he has failed to arrest the principal accused namely Izhar Ahmad."
3. In order to prove the case the prosecution examined 5 PWs and closed its case on 18.3.2017. The statement of the accused/appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 24.5.2017. The appellant/convict pleaded innocence in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. However he did not opt to be examined on oath under section 340(2), Cr .P.C. nor produced any witness in his defence.
4. The arguments of both the parties were heard on 12.09.2017 and the impugned judgment/order was announced on 21.12.2017.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/convict submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is result of mis-conception, misunderstanding, misinterpretation, non-reading and mis-recording of evidence. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial Court completely ignored the cardinal principles of dispensation of justice in criminal cases, as all the benefits of doubts have been withheld and the controversies, which were of very fatal nature, have been resolved in favour of prosecution and not in favour of the appellant. The learned counsel further submitted that the presence of the eye witnesses is not established at the place of occurrence as they being chance witnesses have completely failed to account for their presence at the venue of occurrence. The learned counsel took us to the site plan and submitted that the complainant got prepared the site plan, who was not an eye-witness and he has not disclosed from whom he derived the information of occurrence. The learned counsel further submitted that whole the prosecution case is revolving around three persons namely complainant Muhammad Abdullah (P.W.-1), Atta-ur-Rahman (P.W-2) and Haji Rehmat (PW-3) who are close relatives and have contradicted each other on almost all the material points. The learned counsel prays that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond any shadow of doubt, the appellant be honorably acquitted from the charges. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on 2002 SCMR 1986, PLD 2003 Lah. 270, 2008 PCr.LJ 318, 2010 PCr.LJ 547 and 2011 PCr.LJ 328.
6. Conversely, the learned Dy.A.G. vehemently contended that the occurrence was a day light and the name of the accused and the witnesses finds mentioned in a promptly lodged FIR, which was lodged within 15 minutes of the occurrence. The appellant is charged for opening fatal shots on the deceased, who was a minor boy of 14 years as reflected from death certificate issued, by Senior Medical Technician Civil Hospital Darel and inquest report prepared by the I.O. Per learned Dy.A.G, the witnesses are natural, their presence at the spot could not be shattered despite a lengthy and searching cross-examination. The medical report is in quite in line with the ocular evidence. The learned Dy.A.G. lastly submitted that during investigation of the case a 30 bore pistol was recovered for which the appellant was not having a valid license and a separate FIR under section 13, A.O. bearing No. 27/2015 of Police Station Darel was lodged against the appellant.
The said pistol was sent to Forensic Expert for expert opinion, which has been received and the report of forensic expert is positive. The prosecution has proved the case beyond any shadow of doubt and the conviction awarded to the convict/appellant be maintained in the given circumstances of the case as there is no mitigating circumstances in favour of the appellant. The minor discrepancies pointed out by the learned defence counsel are of very trivial nature and does not advance the case of defence. The learned Dy. A.G, relied on 2010 MLD 1521 and 2010 MLD 1376.
"
7. Arguments heard at length and the record of the case perused with the able assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
8. The FIR of the instant case was lodged in the police station within 15 minutes of the occurrence and the appellant was charged for opening fatal shots with 30 bore pistol on the person of deceased Sohail Alam, who was a teen ager of about 14 years. Soon after registration of FIR PW 5, IP/SHO of Police Station Darel proceeded to the place of occurrence and found 3 crime empties of 30 bore pistol which he took into his possession in presence of marginal witness. The I.O. prepared site plan of the occurrence Ex.PW-5/A and also prepared site inspection report Ex PW-5/B. After inspecting the place of occurrence, the I.O. rushed to the Civil Hospital Darel, where the dead body of deceased was lying. The I.O. prepared inquest report (Form 25:35), which has been exhibited in the trial Court as Ex-PW5/C. The I.O. took into his possession the dead body of deceased vide memo Ex.PW-2/A, got it identified from the PWs vide Ex-PW-5/E for medical examination of the deceased. The blood stained clothes of the deceased were taken into possession vide Ex.PW-2/F. On the same day i.e. 15/7/2015 the I.O. recorded the statements of eye-witnesses. The appellant was arrested on 19.07.2015 and on 23.7.2015 a .30 bore pistol was recovered from his possession on his pointation vide Ex.PW-1/B. Site plan of the recovery was prepared and exhibited in trial Court vide Ex.PW-5/F. After completion of investigation the accused was sent to stand trial. The names of both the eye-witnesses namely Haji Rehmat and Atta ur Rehman finds mentioned in the promptly lodged FIR. The perusal of their cross-examination shows that they were subjected a very heavy and lengthy cross-examination and they stood firm throughout and their statements could not be shattered by the defence except some minor contradictions. These two eye witnesses toed their line with the story of complainant and supported his version in pith and substance. The presence of eye witnesses is established at the place of occurrence. The defence has not suggested any ill-will or motive either on the part of complainant or on the part of these two eye-witnesses, which might have motivated them to depose against the accused especially in a case of capital punishment. The occurrence took place in a bazaar and the prosecution witness being present there identified the assailant who was non else but the appellant alone. The learned trial Court in the impugned judgment/order has minutely examined each and every piece of prosecution evidence and appreciated all the incriminating pieces of evidence in accordance with the settled principles governing safe administration of criminal justice. The name of the convict/appellant finds mentioned in site plan Ex .PW-5/A and the names of eye-witnesses are also mentioned therein. The eye-witnesses have affixed their signatures on the site plan. The site inspection report also carries the name of the convict/appellant as sole accused, who committed the murder of deceased.
9. The investigation in this case has been conducted in a fair and transparent manner and no infirmity has been neither pointed out by the defence nor surfaced, while scanning prosecution evidence. 'It has already been held by this Court in a number of criminal cases that in presence of natural, trustworthy and straightforward evidence, there is no need to look for independent corroboration. In the instant case medical evidence, the report of Forensic Expert, and the report of Serologist are positive and provides sufficient corroboration to maintain the conviction awarded by the trial Court.
10. What has been discussed above, we are of the view that the prosecution proved the guilt of the convict/appellant up to the hilt and the convict/appellant has been properly awarded death sentence. The sentence awarded by the trial Court is maintained. However the learned trial Court has not awarded any fine under section 544-A, Cr.P.C., which was mandatory in nature. Section 544-A, C.P.C. is reproduced for the purpose of ready reference:- 544-A. Compensation to the heirs of person killed, etc. [(1) Whenever a person is convicted of an offence in the commission whereof the death of or hurt, injury , or mental anguish or psychological damage to, any person is caused or damage to or loss or destruction of any property is caused, the Court shall when convicting such person, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing it otherwise directs, order the person convicted to pay to the heirs of the person whose death has been caused, or to the person hurt or injured, or to the person to whom mental anguish or psychological damage has been caused, or to the owner of the property damaged, lost or destroyed, as the case may be, such compensation as the Court may determine having regard to the circumstances of the case";
(2) The compensation payable under subsection (1) shall be recoverable as [an arrear of land revenue] and the Court may further order that, in default of payment or of recovery as aforesaid the person ordered to pay such compensation shall suffer imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, or if it be a Court of the Magistrate of the third class, for a period not exceeding thirty days.-
(3) The compensation payable under subsection (1) shall be in addition to any sentence which the Court may impose for the offence of which the person directed to pay compensation has been convicted.
11. The above section of law depicts that compensation to the legal heirs of person killed is mandatory in nature and "the Court shall" when convicting a person, unless the reasons to be recorded in writing, it otherwise direct order the person convicted to pay compensation as the Court may determine having regard to the circumstances of the case.
12. We accordingly direct that a sum of Rs. 100,0000/-(Rupees ten lac) shall be paid to the legal heirs of deceased.
The compensation shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. In default the appellant shall undergo six months' R.I.
13. The conviction/sentence awarded to the appellant/convict by the learned trial Court is maintained. The murder reference submitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Diamer in Sessions Case No.107/2015 is answered in positive.
14. Appeal is dismissed.