' Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, J.-- Muhammad Ayyaz, son of Muhammad Asghar and Muhammad Ifraheem son of Wall Muhammad, were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal for the murder of Muhammad Mansha.
' The trial Judge by his judgment, dated 10th September, 1981 convicted Muhammad Ayyaz and sentenced him to death. He was also fined Rs,2,000, or in default to undergo R.I. For two years.
Muhammad lfraheem was acquitted.
2. The convict has filed appeal against his conviction and sentence. Reference for confirmation of his death sentence is also before us. Both the matters are being decided by this judgment.
3. The occurrence is dated 7th July, 1980. Time was 5-00 p.m. The murder took place in the hotel of Muhammad Mansha which is situated at More of Chak No, 119/9L, within the jurisdiction of Dera Rahim, District ' F.!. R. (Exh. P.C.) was lodged by Habib father of the deceased, at 6-30 p.m. The same day. It was recorded by Ghulam Qasim A.S.I.
' According to the F.I.R. The father and the son were present at the hotel when the occurrence took place. The appellant and the acquitted accused came there. They shouted that they would teach lesson to Mansha for stopping them from coming to the hotel. Lfraheem caught hold of Mansha from his hair. Muhammad Ayyaz attacked Mansha with dagger. The deceased received injury under his left arm-pit. He fell down. The complainant raised alarm. Manak and another Mansha, son of Waryam, came to the place of occurrence. They caught hold of the appellant. He had dagger with him. Lfraheem ran away. The deceased succumbed to the injury at the spot instantaneously.
' The motive was that a day before the occurrence Mansha deceased forbade the appellant from coming and sitting in the hotel because of his objectionable activities. The appellant felt offended and killed Mansha.
4. Ocular version is given by Habib and Manak P.Ws. Rest of the evidence pertains to recovery of dagger P.2, medico-legal report of Manak and post-mortem report of Mansha deceased. Habib P.W.3 father of the deceased, repeated the same story which he gave in the F.I.R. In addition to that, he said that he, Manak and Mansha apprehended the appellant alongwith his dagger at the spot.
The dagger was taken from his hand. During this scuffle, Manak sustained a minor injury to his hand. Habib also attested the recovery memo. Exh. P.D. By means of which the blood-stained dagger was taken into possession. He also disclosed motive to the trial Court, as mentioned in the F.I.R. Referred to above.
' The other eye-witness, Manak P.W.4 corroborated the testimony of Habib. He was present at the tea shop of one Sultan. It was close to the place of occurrence. He came to the spot on hearing the alarm of Habib. Manak also attested recovery memo. Of blood-stained dagger and bloodstained earth taken from the spot.
5. Abdul Satar, Dispenser, D.H.Q. Hospital, Sahiwal appeared to prove the post-mortem report of the deceased as well as medico-legal report of Manak, because the doctor who wrote reports was not available.
' According to the post-mortem report, the deceased had an incised wound 2+ x 1} c.m., going deep on the outer lower left chest. The death was due to this injury. The medico-legal report of Manak P.W. Showed that he had an incised wound 3 x 1/2 c.m., muscle deep, on the tip of the right index finger.
6. The appellant when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Pleaded not guilty. He took up the plea of private defence. His statement was that on the day of occurrence he came from Rawalpindi, his home district, and got down from a bus at the Addah of Chak No, 119/9L. Muhammad Mansha deceased used to run a tea-shop. The appellant took tea from the hotel of Mansha and an altercation took place between the two over the payment of bill. The deceased attacked the appellant with an iron Sua. The latter, in order to defend himself, picked up a kitchen Chhurri lying at the hotel and caused a blow to the deceased in exercise of right of private defence.
' The appellant produced Malik Ghulam Haider, D.S.P., D.W.1. The D.S.P. Had conducted investigation into the defence plea. He however, did not record any positive finding about the guilt or innocence of the appellant and left the matter to be decided by the Court.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the eye- witnesses, who were also recovery witnesses, were interested. Habib was father of the deceased. Manak too was related to the mother of the deceased. The prosecution did not produce Mansha son of Waryam, the only independent witness. According to the learned counsel, this type of evidence required corroboration from independent source. Last of all, the learned counsel submitted that the defence version was more trustworthy than the prosecution story.
7. No doubt, the eye-witnesses are related to the deceased but the defence did not bring anything on record to show that they were inimically disposed towards the appellant. As a matter of fact, their statements are consistent. Their evidence is supported by the recovery of blood-stained dagger from the spot as well as the medical evidence. The appellant was caught red-handed.
' The plea of private defence is an afterthought, because D.W.1 in his cross-examination submitted that the same was not taken before him. Even otherwise, there is no material on record to create even the probability that the incident took place as stated by the appellant.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the appellant has been rightly convicted.
However, we think that he is entitled to reduction in the sentence, the reason being that he caused one injury to the deceased. Unfortunately, it proved fatal. There is nothing in evidence nor is there any indication that after inflicting one injury the appellant even attempted to cause more injuries to the deceased. We, therefore, decline to confirm the death sentence and reduce his sentence to imprisonment for life. He shall be entitled to the concession under section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
' The fine imposed by the trial Court was not reasonable. We, therefore, gave notice to the learned counsel for the appellant to show cause why the amount of fine be not enhanced. The notice was duly accepted. The amount is enhanced to Rs, 20,000. The whole amount of fine shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The Collector concerned shall take immediate steps for its realization and payment.
' The Murder Reference and the Criminal Appeal stand disposed of in the above terms.