Ahmad Saeed appellant alongwith five others was tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Khushab for the murder of Nazar Muhammad and, vide his judgment, dated 20-12-1989, he was convicted under section 304, Part I and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.50,000 or in default to further undergo two years' R.I. The fine, if realised, was directed to be paid by way of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that Muhammad Amir complainant was resident of village Waheer, Tehsil and District Khushab. Towards the southern side of his house, he had constructed a `Baithak' for his guests. He wanted to construct a boundary wall and affix a gate therein towards the east of his Baithak On 12-2-1988 when he alongwith Nazar Muhammad deceased and Muhammad Zarif son of Ali Muhammad and Muhammad Aslam son of Ahmad Hassan was constructing a portion of the wall, Ahmad Saeed appellant and Muhammad lqbal acquitted accused armed with a .12 bore gun, Sabir Khan, Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Asghar acquitted accused armed with Sotas', suddenly appeared on the scene. Muhammad Iqbal acquitted Co--accused raised a Lalkara addressing Muhammad Munir complainant and his brother, directing them to stop its construction or face the consequences. Hearing the Lalkara, Nazar Muhammad (deceased) and Zafar Muhammad P.W. Stood up on a heap of bricks.
Muhammad Iqbal acquitted accused came forward and stood near the heap of bricks. As they confronted each other, Nazar Muhammad (deceased) hurling an abuse at Muhammad Iqbal acquitted accused and his companions, expressed his determination to raise the disputed construction. Thereupon Muhammad lqbal acquitted co-accused fired at Nazar Muhammad, hitting him on his mouth followed by Ahmad Saeed whose shot hit him on the head and face. As a result of the injuries so received, Nazar Muhammad fell down. The appellant and his co-accused went on threatening and abusing for some time and then fled away. Nazar Muhammad died on the spot.
3. The motive for the crime was the dispute between the parties regarding the piece of land over which the construction was being raised by the complainant party and Haji Zafar acquitted. Co- accused had instigated his co-accused to commit the murder of Nazar Muhammad.
4. The matter was reported to the police by Muhammad Amir complainant and a case was registered against the appellant and his acquitted co-accused under section 148/302/149/109, P.P.C. Its investigation was taken up by S.I. Muhammad Nawaz of Police Station Jauharabad.
Muhammad lqbal and Haji Zafar co-accused were found innocent and were placed in column No.2 of the challan. However, they were sent up for trial alongwith their co-accused.
5. On the commencement of trial the prosecution produced as many as 12 witnesses prominent amongst those who were.
6. On the conclusion of the trial the learned trial Judge, vide his judgment now under challenge, convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner aforesaid after acquitting his co-accused on benefit of doubt.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant, after arguing the appeal at some length with a view to show that the appellant was innocent and he was falsely implicated in the case, eventually took up the position that his conviction under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. May be maintained but his sentence may be reduced to a reasonable level as it was a sudden affair and the learned trial Judge has dealt with him harshly in the matter of sentence.
8. The learned counsel representing the State also seems to be agreeable I with the request of the appellant's counsel. Thus, where the conviction of the appellant under section 304, Part I is maintained, his sentence is reduced from imprisonment for life to 10 years' R.I. And his fine is reduced from Rs.50,000 to A Rs.25,000 or in lieu thereof he shall suffer two years' R.I. (which is not reduced). The entire amount of fine, if realised, shall be paid as compensation to the heirs of Nazar Muhammad (deceased) in accordance with their `Shara' shares. The compensation shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue and its non-payment shall further entail six months' R.I. For the appellant.
9. The appellant, being already in Shahpur Jail, should be informed accordingly through the Jail Authorities.
SA./A-1357/L