' Muhammad Yasin (13/14), his brother Shamshad and their father Ali Ahmad (60/70) were tried for the murder of Muhammad Islam deceased. By judgment dated 12-1-1986 the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Sargodha convicted Muhammad Yasin appellant under section 304(1), P.P.C. And sentenced him to undergo seven years' R.I. Plus a fine of Rs,2,000 or in default to further undergo six months' R.I. With benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The fine was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation. However, Shamshad and Ali Ahmad accused were given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.
' Muhammad Yasin appellant has filed this appeal.
2. The prosecution case is that Ali Ahmad father of Muhammad Yasin appellant was half-wit and small boys of the locality used to tease him who in return would abuse them. On 18-8-1985 at about 5-00 p.m. The boys, as usual, teased Ali Ahmad. In the meantime, his sons Muhammad Yasin appellant and Shamshad (acquitted accused) came there and admonished Muhammad Islam deceased and his brother Muhammad Ikram P.W.9 for misbehaving with their father. In the meanwhile, Ali Ahmad and Shamshad accused caught hold of Islam deceased while Muhammad Yasin appellant went to his house and brought a Chhuri and inflicted a blow on the abdomen of Islam deceased. As a result of the said injury Muhammad Islam died in the District Hospital, Sargodha on the same night. Muhammad Ikram P.W.9 reported the matter to the police vide statement Exh. P.J on the same day.
3. Iqbal Hussain S.I. P.W./11 recorded his statement and prepared the injury statement and inquest report of the deceased and arrested all the three accused on 19-8-1985. On 21-8-1985 Muhammad Yasin appellant led to the recovery of blood-stained Chhuri Exh.P.3 through memo Exh.P.F. Attested by Manzoor Ahmed P.W.8 and Muhammad Ikram (given up). The Chhuri was found to be stained with human blood by the Serologist.
4. Muhammad Yasin appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution allegations. Explaining the case he made the following statement: "My father Ali Ahmad is a half-wit. On the day of occurrence when I came out of my house I found Islam deceased teasing my father and he pulled his loin-cloth and made my father naked. On this I abused him and he attacked me with an iron Mukka; I picked up Chhuri from the nearby Fruit Vendor Rehri and to defend myself caused him one blow. My mother treated Islam as her son. We live like brothers. The whole incident was sudden. I am sorry for the incident. Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Ikram P.Ws. Were not present at the spot. My mother attended the funeral of Islam deceased and buried him like her own son. Subsequently, the complainant party has tried to twist the facts of the case to make out a murder case against me at the trial. My brother Shamshad was not present at the time of occurrence and there was no question of Ali Ahmad who .Is a half-wit of catching hold of the deceased."
' He produced his school-certificate Exh.D.C. Showing his date of birth as 1st January, 1972. He did not call any oral evidence in defence.
5. Dr.Muhammad Ayub Ansari P.W.3 medically examined Muhammad Islam deceased (35) and found the following injury on his person: ' A stab wound 3 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. With protrusion of the intestines through the wound.
' The injury had been caused by a sharp edged weapon.
' The same injury was found in the post-mortem report and was declared sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
6. The prosecution case rests on the evidence of Muhammad Ikram P.W.9 and Muhammad Arshad P.W.10 who furnished the ocular account. Manzoor Ahmad P.W.8 was examined to prove the recovery of blood-stained Chhuri P.3 at the instance of the appellant. Iqbal Hussain S.I. P.W. 11 investigated the case.
7. Muhammad Ikram P.W.9 introduced another motive in his statement at the trial stating that a month or 1-1/2 months before the occurrence there was a fight between Muhammad Yasin appellant and Muhammad Islam deceased over pigeons belonging to Muhammad Islam deceased which had been caught by Muhammad Yasin appellant. The deceased demanded his pigeons back but Muhammad Yasin refused to do so whereupon Islam deceased slapped Muhammad Yasin appellant who threatened him with dire consequences. The learned trial Court did net accept the motive introduced subsequently, for, it was not mentioned in the F.I.R. And held that the cause of occurrence was the insult meted out to Ali Ahmad father of Muhammad Yasin appellant as a result of cutting of jokes with him. He believed the presence of Muhammad Ikram P.W.9 and Muhammad Arshad P.W.10 at the spot at the relevant time. He also relied upon the recovery of blood-stained Chhuri at the instance of the appellant and considered it as a corroborative piece of evidence.
8. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that there existed no enmity between the parties and that the occurrence was the result of an altercation taking place on the eventful day on account of cutting of jokes with the father of Muhammad Yasin appellant. He was of the view that the appellant who was a young boy could not tolerate the disgrace of his father and acting under grave and sudden provocation gave a single Chhuri blow to the deceased which proved fatal and as such convicted him under section 304(1), P.P.C. And sentenced him to seven years' R.I. Plus fine.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. He has not seriously challenged the conviction of the appellant but has prayed for reduction of sentence on the ground that the appellant is a young lad and had acted under grave and sudden provocation on seeing his father being disgraced. According to him the appellant is in jail ever since his conviction and has remained there for a period of more than five years.
10. In the circumstances narrated above, I consider the appellant entitled to leniency in the matter of sentence. Accordingly, while maintaining his conviction I reduce his period of imprisonment to the one already undergone by him plus the fine as awarded by the trial Court or in default to undergo six months' R.I. He shall be set at liberty on payment of fine provided he is not required in any other case. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.