' GULBAZ KHAN, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, dated 20-5-1980. Whereby Shafique Ahmad (Muhammad Shafique) appellant was convicted under section 302, P. P. C. And sentenced to death and a fine of rupees five thousand or in default in payment of fine to undergo R. I. For three years, in case the death sentence was not confirmed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not comply with the mandatory provisions of section 544-A, Cr. P. C. And not pass any order with regard to the compensation. The case was referred to this Court for confirmation of death sentence. Zahid Khurshid filed revision petition for the enhancement of amount of fine and also for awarding compensation to the heirs of the deceased. The appeal, the reference and revision petition are being disposed of together.
2. On 2-10-1978, at about 6-30 a.m. Khurshid-ul-Hassan deceased was returning to his house situated in village Changa Bagial, after answering the call of nature. He was being followed by his son Zahid Khurshid, complainant, Azizuddin Ahmed, Advocate and Mahmood Abmad. When the deceased reached near the field of Abdul Hamid and Abdul Rashid sons of Mehrban, Shafique Ahmad appellant came out of the lawar field of Abdul Hamid and Abdul Rashid. He shouted at the deceased that he had come to teach him lesson for stopping them from drawing water from the well and for rendering help to Muhammad Usman. The witnesses ran towards the spot but in the meantime, Shafique Ahmad appellant fired 12 bore pistol shot at the deceased, which hit him on the heart and the deceased fell down. Mahmood Ahmad wanted to catch hold of the appellant but the appellant threatened him with death. The appellant fled away. The deceased was taken to the Hospital Gujjar Khan but he expired on the way.
3. Zabid Khurshid lodged the F. I. R. At Police Station Gujjar Khan, within one hour of the occurrence, which was recorded by Sher Bakhsh S. H. 0 (P. W. 8). On reaching Hospital Gujjar Khan, the S. H. O.
Prepared injury statement and inquest report and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. The S. H. O. Collected blood-stained earth from the spot and sealed it into a parcel.
He took into possession one empty cartridge P. 1 from the spot and sealed it into a parcel. He arrested Shafique Ahmad appellant, on 6-10-1978 near Bus Stand Gujjar Khan. The appellant produced Pistol P. 5 and three live cartridges P. 6/1-3 which were taken into possession. The pistol was sealed into a parcel. The empty cartridges and the pistol were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Lahore. It was opined by the Examiner of the Fire-arms that 12 bore crime empty was fired from 12 bore country made pistol. Report of the Fire-arm Examiner Exh. P.M. Was placed on the record.
4. Dr. Shamasuddin conducted autopsy on the dead body of Raja Khurshid-ul-Hassan on 2-10-19/8 at 9-00 p.m. And found a fire-arm wound of inlet below the left nipple. Margins were inverted, contused and blackened. Skin round was charred. The left pleura of the lung was injured. The lower lobes of left lung was injured at lower part. The left dome of diaphragm was injured. The spleen was injured in multiple piece. A pellet and two cardboard were found in the substance of the spleen.
The tenth thorasic vertebra was found fractured. Three pellets were found lodged in the substance.
' In the opinion of doctor, death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of injury No, 1, to lower lobe of left lung and spleen, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The time between injury and death was about half an hour and between death and post- mortem about three hours.
5. The charge was framed against the appellant on 2-4-1980. It was read over to him and he was asked if he had understood the charge. The appellant answered the question in the affirmative. He was further asked if he pleaded guilty. He replied to this question also in the affirmative and further added that he committed the murder of Khurshidul-Hassan on 2-10-1978, at 6-30 a.m. He was asked if he wanted to say something. He replied that he did not want to make any other statement.
' The trial Court after recording the plea of the appellant could convict him on his plea but it took precaution and proceeded to record the evidence.
6. Zahid Khurshid complainant made detailed statement in Court and named the appellant as the person, who had tired 12 bore pistol shot at his father and murdered him. He also save the motive of the case by stating that fourteen days prior to the occurrence, his father had closed the path leading from the house of the appellant towards the well situated in the Haveli of Azizuddin Ahmad Advocate, by erecting a stone wall and had stopped the family of the appellant from drawing water from the said well. The appellant bore grudge on that account. Eight or nine days prior to the occurrence, the appellant fired shot at the nephew of the complainant named Muhammad Usman, for which a case under sections 307 and 506, P. P. C. Had been registered. Appellant had absconded in the said case.
' The prosecution gave up the other two eye-witnesses, Azizuddin Ahmed, Avdocate and Mahmood Ahmad as unnecessary.
7. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr. - P. C. He admitted that Khurshid-ul-Hassan deceased had stopped the supply of water to his family from two wells. He further admitted that eight/nine days prior to the occurrence he had fired at Muhammad Usman, a nephew of Zahid Khurshid P W. For which a case under section 307, P. P. C.
Had been registered and he had absconded in that case. He also admitted that, on 2-10-1978 at about 6-30 a m. When Khurshid-ul-Hassan deceased reached near boundary of field of Abdul Rashid and Abdul Hamid sons of Mehrban after easing himself, he raised a lalkara that he would teach him a lesson for closing the water from the well and for helping Muhammad Usman against him and he fired 12-bore Pistol Exh P. 6 at the deceased which hit him on left side near the heart as result of which, be fell down there and died later on. He, however, denied the presence of the eye- witnesses at the spot. He admitted that he left behind empty cartridge P. 1 at the place of occurrence. He denied the recovery of Pistol P. 5 as stated by the witnesses. He, however, admitted to have produced Pistol P. 6 and cartridge P. 6/1-3 When asked as to why the prosecution witnesses deposed against him, he stated since he had murdered Khurshid-ul-Hassan, therefore, a true cause had been made against him. He declined to lead any evidence in defence.
8. The parties were closely related to each other. Khurshid-ulHassan deceased was maternaluncle of Azizuddin Ahmad Advocate. Father of Azizuddin Ahmad and the father of the appellant were first cousins. Sister of the appellant was married to the elder brother o f Azizuddin Ahmed Advocate.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant straightway conceded that he could not go beyond the provisions of section 412, Cr. P. C. He contended that by his action in stopping the family of the appellant from drawing water from the well, the deceased had forced the appellant to take the extreme step and it was an extenuating circumstance for imposing lesser sentence. He further- contended that the confessing accused should be dealt with leniency.
10. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant in depth. We tried to find out if there was any extenuating circumstance. After the entire evidence was read, we came to the conclusion that there was no mitigating circumstances in favour of thel4 appellant. It was not a sudden affair. The deceaed had closed thel house of the appellant towards the well fourteen or fifteen days prior to the occurrence. There was enough time for the appellant to have recourse to the law enforcing agencies. He did not do so. On 24-9-1978, he fired at Muhammad Usman and a case was registered against him. He had absconded in that case. There was no evidence to the effect that there were only two wells in the village. The appellant could approach the respectables of the village for persuading the deceased to permit the family members of the appellant to draw water from the well Instead of making a correct approach, he took the law into own hands and fired shot at the deceased from a close range and intentionally committed his murder. The learned counsel fo the appellant had cited an authority in case of contempt of Court to canvass that the contemner was dealt with leniency when he confessed his guilt and placed himself at the mercy of the Court. That authority was not applicable to the facts of this case. That was a matter between the Court and contemner and the rights of an individual had not been infringed. In case we accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the confessing accused should be dealt with leniency, we will be opening a new door to the accused in a proved case to make confession. After having considered the entire material, we uphold the judgment of the trial Court and dismiss the appeal. We direct that the fine, if recovered, shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation.
' The death sentence of Shafique Ahmad is confirmed.
' The revision petition for the enhancement of fine is dismissed but the prayer for awarding compensation to the heirs of the deceased is accepted. .