KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.~Iqbal appellant and his friend Hanif were tried for the murder of one Muhammad Mohsin and through a judgment dated 12.6.1988 of a learned A.S J. At Sahiwal, Hanif accused was acquitted of the charge whereas Iqbal appellant was found guilty U/S 302 PP.C. And was sentenced to death with a fine of Rs.10,000/- or to suffer two years R.I. In default of payment of the same. Half of the amount of fine was directed to be paid to the heirs of the deceased.
2. Murder Reference No.204 of 1988 seeks confirmation of the death sentence imposed on the appellant who in turn, seeks annulment of the same through Crl. Appeal No.1057 of 1988.
3. Through F.I.R, which was recorded at the instance of Bashir Ahmad who is a brother of Mohsin deceased, it was alleged that on his return from the wheat thrasher at about mid night alongwith one Noor Hassan, the complainant found Iqbal appellant sitting on the Western wall of their house who then fired shots at Mohsin deceased with his l2 bore pistol and ran away thereafter.
4. It was further alleged that Bashir complainant and Noor Hassan P.W. Rushed out of the house and saw Hanif accused armed with a SOTI helping Iqbal appellant in climbing down from the wall aforementioned.
5. The complainant had further disclosed through this F.I.R, that one Mst. Kausar, a sister of Iqbal appellant was engaged to her paternal cousin living in Bahawal Nagar but Mohsin deceased had developed illicit liaison with her as a result of which, the father of Iqbal appellant got forced into performing the Nikah of the said Mst. Kausar with Mohsin deceased and in exchange thereof, a sister ofMohsin deceased was married to a brother of Iqbal appellant. The complainant had, however, stated that Iqbal appellant had not accepted this marriage arrangement and had not even participated in the nikah ceremony above- mentioned and that it was to avenge this insult, that Iqbal appellant had finally murdered Mohsin deceased.
6. The case of the appellant was one of total denial who explained his involvement on account of suspicion.
7. The occurrence had allegedly taken place in the early hours of 18.5.1986 and on his visit to the venue of occurrence, Shafi I.O. (PW-10) had found a crime empty P-3 lying there which was seized by him.
8. This crime empty P-3 was despatched to the Fire Arms Expert the very next day on 19.5.1986.
9. Iqbal appellant was arrested on 21.5.1986 and on his personal search, a .12 bore Pistol P-5 was recovered alongwith one live cartridge P-6.
10. This pistol was also sent to the Fire Arms Expert the same day but was returned with some objection and the same was then re-sent to the said Expert on 27.5.1986.
11. The report of the Fire Arms Expert Exh.PM demonstrates that crime empty P-3 found at the place of occurrence had been fired from .12 bore Pistol P- 5 recovered from Iqbal appellant at the time of his arrest.
12. The month of May is admittedly the wheat crop season when the said crop is lying in the fields and is thrashed. The claim of Bashir complainant who is a farm labourer that he returned home around mid-night after thrashing wheat, is thus not unbelieveable. He has obviously no motive to falsely implicate Iqbal appellant and more so when one of his sisters had been given in marriage to a brother of the appellant.
13. His testimony inspires confidence and is corroborated by the motive, the medical evidence and the evidence emanating from the crime empty recovered from the spot and the Pistol seized from the possession of the appellant.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any material on record which could dissuade us from placing reliance on the evidence offered by Bashir complainant.
Consequently, we maintain the conviction of Iqbal appellant under section 302 P.P.C, as recorded by the learned trial Court.
15. It is, however, the complainant's own case that the murder of Mohsin deceased was the result of the illicit liaison developed by the deceased with the sister of Iqbal appellant on account of which, even the engagement of Mst. Kausar with her real paternal cousin had to be broken. The appellant could justifiably feel offended of this unethical act on the part of the deceased.
16. In the circumstances, we find that imposition of the extreme penalty of death on Iqbal appellant was not justified. The same is, therefore, converted into a sentence of imprisonment for life. The fine imposed on the appellant and the imprisonment ordered in default of payment of fine shall, however, be maintained. We also allow the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B Cr.P.C, to the appellant.
17. Criminal Appeal No.1057 of 1988 is thus partly accepted in the above terms and is disposed of accordingly.
18. The death sentence awarded to Iqbal appellant is NOT CONFIRMED and Murder Reference No.204 of 1988 is also answered accordingly.