Salim alias Seema appellant alongwith his uncle Nawab acquitted accused was tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Bhalwal, District Sargodha, for the murder of Muhammad Sabtain on 25-9-1985 at 8-30 a.m. Within the area of Chak No.19/S.B. On the conclusion of trial, vide judgment dated 27-11-19W, where Nawab co-accused was acquitted, the appellant was convicted under section 304, Part 1, P.P.C. And sentenced to 10 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default to further undergo two years' R.1. The fine, if recovered, was directed to be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation. He wits also given the benefit of section 382-B, CC.P.C.
2. The facts of the case are that on the aforesaid date at 8-30 a.m. When Muhammad Sabtain (deceased) was on his way to his Dera' and reached in front of the house of Nawab co-accused, the latter accompanied by the appellant, who was his son-in-law, suddenly attacked him after raising a Lalkara' that they would teach him a lesson for causing hindrance in the construction of their house over 'Arrori Ihata. Nawab co-accused, who was empty-handed, grapples! With Muhammad Sabtain (deceased) and the appellant, who was armed with a Sota, gave a blow with it on his head, as a result of which he (deceased) fell down. The occurrence was witnessed by his father Arif Hussain complainant, Imtiaz Ahmad and Sajid Iqbal P.Ws., who tried to rescue the victim but could not.
3. The motive for the crime was that the accused party wanted to construct a room in the 'Arrori Ihata' situated in the common land of the village and Arif Hussain complainant had asked them not to do so as it might disturb sewerage system of the village. This led to an exchange of hot words between them, ending up in the mishap of the main occurrence.
4. The injured was removed to Kot Momen Hospital but due to the non---availability of the doctor he was taken to D.H.Q. Hospital, Sargodha, where he was medically examined but due to his serious condition he was referred to General Hospital, Lahore and died on the way.
5. The matter was reported to the police by Arif Hussain complainant and a case was registered under section 302/34, P.P.C.
6. After the completion of investigation, the appellant and his acquitted co---accused were sent up for trial to the Court of Session.
7. During the course of trial the prosecution produced as many as seven witnesses. Prominent amongst them were Dr. Khalid Akhtar (P.W.4) who proved the injuries of Muhammad Sabtain (deceased). He had medically examined the injured and had also conducted post-mortem examination during which he found the same injuries, which he had noticed at the time of medico- legal examination of the injured. Arif (P.W.5) and Imtiaz (P.W.6) gave the eye-witness account besides testifying about the motive. Inspector/S.H.O. Karim Nawaz (P.W.7) gave the detail of the investigation.
8. On the completion of the prosecution evidence the appellant and his acquitted co-accused were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances figuring against them in the prosecution evidence and, alleging their false implication, professed innocence.
9. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge, by the judgment now challenged, convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner aforesaid, after acquitting his co-accused, and aggrieved by it, he came tip in appeal to this Court.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant during the course of argument has tried to make out a case of private defence in order to save the life of his co---accused who was allegedly being strangulated to death by the deceased, but eventually accepting the conviction of his client tinder section 3(14, Part 1, P.P.C. As correct, has requested for the reduction of his sentence.
11. The learned counsel representing the State, on the other hand, is of the view that the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced and his appeal needs to be dismissed.
12. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, where the conviction of the appellant is maintained, his sentence of imprisonment is reduced from ten years' R.I. To seven years' R.I., the sentence of line is reduced from Rs.10,000 to Rs.5,000 and the sentence in lieu of tine from two years' R.I. To one year's R.I. The fine, if recovered, shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased and in default of its payment the appellant shall further undergo three months' R.I. Only to this extent the appeal is accepted.