MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---Appellant Muhammad Sohail alias Sohaila and Muhammad Ali alias Raju faced trial in case FIR No. 127 dated 21.04.2003, offence under sections 302 and 393, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Naulakha, Lahore. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court, vide its judgment dated 04.10.2005, convicted the appellant and Muhammad Ali alias Raju under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced them to death for committing qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Asghar , with a direction to pay compensation of Rs.100 ,000/- each to the legal heirs of deceased, in default whereof to undergo SI for six months each. They were also convicted under sections 393/34, P.P.C. and sentenced to 07 years' RI each, with fine of Rs.25000/- each, in default whereof to undergo SI for one year each. The appellant and his co-convict filed a joint criminal appeal against their convictions and sentences before Lahore High Court, Lahore. A murder reference was also sent by the learned trial Court for confirmation of sentence of death or otherwise of appellant and his co-convict. Through the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the criminal appeal and while converting sentence of death of appellant and his co- convict Muhammad Ali alias Raju into imprisonment for life each answered the murder reference in the negative.
The conviction and sentence of appellant and his co-convict under sections 393/34, P.P.C. was maintained. Benefit of section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure was extended to them and sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently . Thereafter , the appe llant filed a jail petition before this Court, wherein leave was granted on 16.10.2020.
2. It has been noticed by us that at the time of grant of leave, learned counsel for the appellant inadvertently based his contentions on case FIR No. 194 of 2003 dated 12.04.2003 (available at Page 134 of the paper book) and the leave granting order does not contain correct particulars pertaining to instant case i.e. FIR No. 127 dated 21.04.2003, offence under sections 393, 302, P.P.C., registered at P.S. Naulakha, District Lahore, wherein complainant Abdul Reiman has alleged that on 21.04.2003 at 09.20 p.m., he along with Attique ur Rehman, Muhammad Saleem, his father Haji Muhammad Asghar and others were present in his shop, when two accused armed with mousers with intention to snatch money entered the shop. The third accomplice of the accused remained present outside the shop. The complainant has also described the physical features of the accused persons in the FIR. The accused pushed an employee of shop Muhammad Asif. When father of complainant Haji Muhammad Asghar tried to intervene, both the accused started firing at him with their respective mousers. One fire hit Haji Muhammad Asghar below his left eye, whereas the second fire hit him on front of his left shoulder . Haji Muhammad Asghar fell down on the ground. The accused fled away from the spot. Haji Muhammad Asghar succumbed to injuries on his way to hospital.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and perusal of available record, it has been observed by us that occurrence in this case, as per prosecution, took place on 21.04.2003 at 09.20 p.m. The matter was reported to police from the hospital by complainant Abdul Rehman through an oral statement at 10.15 p.m., whereafter formal FIR was registered at 10.45 p.m. on the same night and as such there is no delay in reporting the matter to police.
4. Admittedly , the appellant or any of his co-accused/co-convict is not named in the FIR .nor any suspicion has been shown in the FIR regarding the perpetrators of the incident. The occurrence, as per prosecution, took place in the shop of the complainant side and at the relevant time, complainant Abdul Rehman (PW4), his brother Attique ur Rehman, cousin Muhammad Saleem (PW5) and deceased Haji Muhammad Asghar were present along with employees working in the shop. While appearing before the learned trial Court, the complainant Abdul Rehman (PW4) and Muhammad Salem (PW5) remained consistent on all the material aspe cts of the case and the defence remained unsuccessful in bringing on record any mala tide or ulterior motive on the part of prosecution witnesses for false implication of appellant and his co-accused/co-convicts in this case. It has come on record that appellant and his co-convict Muhammad Ali alias Raju were arrested in some other case and during interrogation, they disclosed about their involvement in this case. A test identification parade was conducted in the jail premises where the complainant Abdul Rehman Muhammad Saleem (PW5) and Attique ur Rehman (given up PW) duly identified the appellant who along with another 'co-accused entered the shop and committed the murder of Haji Muhammad Asghar . The prosecution produced Mian Muhammad Iqbal Mazhar , Special Judicial Magistrate (PW12) to prove the proceedings of identification, parade. Learned counsel for the appellant was not able to point out any flaw in the said identification parade proceedings (Ex.PG). The medical evidence adduced by Dr. Muhammad Zafar who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Haji Muhammad Asghar also supports the case of prosecution against the appellant as the doctor observed firearm injuries on the person of Haji Muhammad Asghar .
Although the empties secured from the spot did not match with the pistol recovered from the appellant and the report of FSL is in the negative but it has been observed by us that even it' this piece of evidence is discarded from consideration, there is overwhelming direct evidence in the shape of statements of complainant Abdul Rehman (PW4) and Muhammad Saleem the identification parade proceedings wherein the eye-witnesses had duly identified the appellant as one of the perpetrators of the crime and the medical evidence which supports the ocular account furnished by eye witnesses. In these circumstances, we have no manner of doubt that prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Even otherwise, learned High Court has already taken a lenient view by converting sentence of death of appellant into imprisonment for life, which in the circumstances of the case, meets the ends of justice.
5. For the foregoing, the instant criminal appeal having no merit is dismissed.