' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- One Ikramullah had been tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge of J hang, for the murder of Ghazanfar Amir and having been found guilty of the charge, he was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. And was punished with death and fine of Rs,20,000 or 3 years' R.I. In default of payment of fine which was directed to be paid to the heirs of the deceased, as compensation.
2. Murder Reference No,47 of 1990 seeks confirmation of the said sentence of death, while Ikramullah convict has filed Criminal Appeal No,66 of 1990 to impugn the above-noticed conviction and sentences recorded against' him. Amir Abdullah, complainant, has filed Criminal Revision No,270 of 1990 and prays for the enhancement of the amount of compensation directed to be paid to the heirs of the deceased. All these matters are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
3. The occurrence in question had taken place at about 4-30 p.m. On 15-3-1988, near the village mosque in village Jhanda, about 12 miles from Police Station Qadirpur, District Jhang. The same had been reported to Ch. Saeed Ahmed, S.I./S.H.O., by Amir Abdullah, the father of Ghazanfar deceased (P.W.8) at 8-00 p.m., the same evening, while the said Police Officer was present in Chowk Mandi Shah Jewna.
4. The said complainant had informed the said Police Officer that he was a resident of village Jhanda; that on 15-3-1988 at about 4-30 p.m., he, alongwith Amir (given up) and Muhammad Zafar, went to the village mosque for offering Asar prayer and saw Ghazanfar deceased going from his house to his Dera alongwith Allah Yar (P.W.9); that when the complainant was about 7 Karams from the said mosque, Ikramullah accused, armed with a .12 bore gun, suddenly emerged there and after raising a Lalkara that he had come to take revenge from the deceased for not giving the land, fired two shots which hit the deceased on his chest, right cheek and hand; that Ghazanfar deceased fell down and breathed his last and that Ikramullah accused disappeared from the place of occurrence.
5. That the complainant had further disclosed that Mst. Fateh Bibi and Mst. Sahab Khatoon, who were, respectively the paternal-grandmother and the paternal-aunt of the complainant and of Ikramullah accused, had given away their land to the complainant and his wife. He had added that Ikramullah accused used to demand the return of his share in the said land. He had also claimed that the maternal-grandfather and maternal-uncle of Ikramullah accused had got murdered in respect of which murder, cases had been registered against the close relatives of Ghazanfar deceased; that the complainant used to help the accused persons who had subsequently got acquitted and that it was on account of these grievances that Ikramullah alias Zafar had done the deceased to death.
6. On his visit to the spot, the I.O. Had found two crime empties Exh.P.6/1-2 lying at the place of occurrence, which he had seized through memo. Exh.P.G. During the course of investigation, Ikramullah accused had been arrested on 25-3-1988 whereafter he had led to the recovery of his licensed gun Exh.P.7 which had been taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.H./1. The said empties had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 22-3-1988 as per Muhammad Jehangir F.C.
(P.W.1) who had subsequently taken and deposited the gun, Exh.P.7, with the said Laboratory on 28- 3-1988. According to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh.P.L.), the said crime empties had been found to have been fired from the said gun Exh.P.7, belonging to Ikramullah accused.
7. Canvassing acquittal for the appellant, it had been argued that the occurrence in question was an unwitnessed occurrence which had taken place sometime after 7-30 p.m. In the darkness of night; that the land in question which had been given away by the abovementioned two ladies to the complainant and his wife, had been transferred before the birth of the appellant and likewise the abovementioned two murders of the maternal- grandfather and the maternal-uncle of the appellant had also been committed before his birth, therefore, the appellant could not be reasonably said to have any motive to kill the deceased on account of these two murders; that the medical evidence was not in conformity with the ocular testimony; that one of the eye-witnesses, namely, Amir Abdullah, was the father of the deceased while the other eye-witness, namely, Allah Yar was also an interested and a chance witness; that if any one had to be killed on account of the above-noticed motive then it would have been the complainant who would have been murdered and not his son; that the eye-witnesses had made improvements in their statements and finally that the ocular testimony which was interested, did not deserve any reliance.
8. Amir Abdullah complainant is the father of the deceased. He frankly admitted the existence of animosity between him and the appellant party on account of the land in question and the murders of the maternal-grandfather and the maternal-uncle of the appellant. Needless to say that mere existence of enmity between the parties, is not sufficient to discard the testimony of a witness unless it could be demonstrated that the said enmity provided a definite motive to the witness to falsely implicate the accused person.
9. In the present case, the land in question belonged to the common ancestors of the complainant and the appellant and in the absence of the specific alienation of this land in favour of the complainant, the same would have also fallen to the share of the father of the appellant and consequently would have come into the hands of the appellant. In the circumstances, the complainant party who had come to own the land which ordinarily would not have reached them, would have no reason to falsely implicate the appellant in the occurrence in question but the transfer in question of the said land would have in fact caused a feeling of deprivation in the appellant pa. Ty which could have provided them a reason to wreak vengeance which feeling could have got manifested in the form of the murder in question. Similar was the position arising out of the murders of the maternal-grandfather and the maternal-uncle of the appellant whose alleged murderers had been helped by the father of the appellant to the annoyance of the appellant party.
10. Consequently, while it is true that enmity exised between the parties, the fact is that the same did not provide any motive for the complainant to falsely involve the appellant in the murder in question.
11. The other eye-witness is one Allah Yar. He appears to be connected with the complainant party but had no occasion or motive to maliciously substitute the appellant for the actual murderer.
12. In case the occurrence in question had gone unwitnessed and some one had to be implicated on account of enmity and suspicion, then there were some other opponents of the complainant party also who were available and could have been better suspects for the murder in question. It will also be noted that the deceased in the present case, had received at least 8 fire-arm wounds of entry and if the complainant party had to be malicious, then they could have easily roped in a larger number of persons from the appellant party and nomination of only the appellant as the assailant of the occurrence in question is another factor which is indicative of the intrinsic worth of the ocular testimony.
13. There is yet another important piece of evidence which offers unimpeachable corroboration to the eye-witness account. Two crime empties which had been recovered from the place of occurrence, had been found to have been fired from the licensed gun of the appellant. The date of recovery of the two crime empties; the date of the arrest of the appellant and finally the date on which these articles had been deposited with the Forensic Science Laboratory, leave no doubt about the veracity of the above report of the Fire Arms Expert.
14. The submission on behalf of the appellant that the transfer of the land in question and the murders in question had been made and committed when the appellant was still in his infancy, is not of any consequence. The issue regarding the land in question was a continuing source of irritation to the appellant party and the appellant having attained maturity and having thus recently got exposed to the material realities of life could reasonably be believed to have re-raised the issue with some vigour which could well have resulted in the occurrence in question.
15. The place of occurrence is about 12 miles away from the police station and about 10 miles from the Chowk where the complainant had met Saeed Ahmed S.I. And where his statement, in respect of the murder in question, had been recorded. The time was 8-00 p.m. i,e. 3-1/2 hours after the occurrence. The formal F.I.R. Had been registered at the police station half an hour later. Thus, there is no unreasonable delay in the recording of the F.I.R. And there is nothing in support of the defence claim that the record of the police station had been tampered with only to prepone the recording of the F.I.R. The submission to that effect on behalf of the appellant is, therefore, without merit.
16. The number of injuries received by the deceased is in accord with the ocular testimony and the learned counsel for the appellant was at a loss to demonstrate any inconsistency between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence. It may be pointed out that the pellets released from the same projectile can cause wounds of different dimensions on account of the nature of the surface at which these pellets hit.
17. In view of the fact that the appellant was the solitary accused nominated in the F.I.R.; the fact that no reason existed on record indicating any possibility of substitution of appellant for the real culprits and the fact that there was ample corroboration available in support of the ocular testimony, we find that no exception can be taken to the conviction of the appellant under section 302, P.P.C., as recorded by the learned trial Court. The said conviction is, therefore, maintained.
18. The quantum of punishment, as deserved by the learned trial Court has, however, engaged our attention. The appellant is a young man of about 22/23 years. He would have genuinely felt agitated on account of deprivation of his share in the land in question which land would have rightfully fallen to his share and the two motives alleged by the prosecution for the murder in question, do furnish mitigating circumstances in favour of the appellant.
19. Consequently, the sentence of death awarded to the appellant is NOT CONFIRMED and he is instead directed to suffer imprisonment for life under section 302, P.P.C. He shall be allowed the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B of Cr.P.C.
20. An amount of Rs,20,000 has already been directed to be paid to the heirs of the deceased, as compensation. No reason exists to direct any further compensation to them. Criminal Revision No,270 of 1990, is, therefore, dismissed.
21. Murder Reference No,47 of 1990 and Criminal Appeal No,66 of 1990, are disposed of in the above terms.
Death sentence NOT CONFIRMED.
Sentence reduced.