ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Muhammad Anwar petitioner was tried and convicted for the murder of Muhammad Aslam and was sentenced to death and a fine of Rs.1,000. On appeal the High Court reduced his sentence of death to that imprisonment for life but enhanced the sentence of fine from Rs.1,000 to Rs.20,000.
2. Briefly the prosecution story is that at about 5-30 p.m. On the date of occurrence Muhammad Aslam deceased and the complainant were cutting fodder for their animals in their Haveli. Sardar A.I accused and his son Muhammad Anwar accused came at the door of the Haveli. Sardar A.I accused called Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Aslam deceased to come out. Both the persons when came out of their Haveli, Sardar A.I accused held Muhammad Aslam deceased from his Collar and gave him 2/3 slaps, saying that how Muhammad Aslam deceased dared to complain about cutting sugarcane. He also asked his son Muhammad Anwar to teach him a lesson. On hearing this, Muhammad Anwar accused gave two Chhuri blows to Muhammad Aslam deceased.
He also gave a blow to Ghulam Hussain, P.W.
1. On hearing the alarm, Bashir, Yaqub and Anwar P.Ws. Came to the spot and witnessed the occurrence. They rescued the complainant and the deceased. The deceased was then taken to the hospital by the complainant, where both of them were medically examined by the doctor. The complainant went to the police -station at 12-15 at night alongwith the medical certificates and lodged the F.I.R. Exh. P. 3.
3. The prosecution version is supported by the testimony of Ghulam Hussain P.W., who was himself injured during the incident and as such his presence at the spot cannot be denied. His testimony is corroborated by the recovery of the blood-stained Chhuri.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The argument raised by him is that the learned Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence and the defence version.
5. We have gone through the relevant portions of the judgments of, the two Courts below and are not persuaded to agree with the petitioner's' learned counsel. We do not, therefore, consider it a fit case ford interference by way of reappraisal of evidence.
6.Petitioner's counsel then submitted that the petitioner may be granted the benefit of section 382- B, Cr.P.C.
7. We have considered this prayer in the light of the circumstances of the case and direct that if the petitioner pays Rs.20,000 to the heirs of the deceased as compensation (as directed by the High Court) before the expiry of his sentence, the Jail Authorities should counts the period spent as under-trial prisoner, while computing the period of his sentence. If, however, he fails to pay the above said amount he shall not be entitled to this relief.
Sentence of 2 years under section 324, P.P.C. Shall run concurrently.
With the above observations the petition stands disposed of.