ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J.---This Criminal Petition No. 161-L of 1906 and Jail Petition No.64 of 1996, are directed against the judgment, dated 4-3-1996, passed by the learned High Court, Lahore, whereby the learned Judges maintained the conviction of the convict respondent Muhammad Shafique, under section 302, P.P.C., but reduced his sentence from death to that of life imprisonment but maintained the sentence of fine and compensation under section 544, Cr.P.C.
With the direction that the said amount of fine and compensation be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. By the same judgment the learned High Court also dismissed the Criminal Revision No.230 of 1992 filed by the complainant Muhammad Yasin, the petitioner herein, for enhancement of the sentence of fine and compensation awarded against the convict respondent Muhammad Shafique.
2. Muhammad Shafique respondent was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, under section 302, P.P.C. For committing the murder of Muhammad Amin and for attempt to commit '
Qatl-i-Amd' of Muhammad Sharif. The learned trial Judge by his judgment dated 14-1-1992, convicted the respondent Muhammad Shafique under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced him to death with a fine of Rs.20,000 or in default to undergo R.I. For three years, and further awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000, if realised, to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default to undergo R.I. For 6 months. The trial Court further convicted the respondent under section 324, P.P.C.
And sentenced him to R.I. For to years with a fine of Rs.2,000 and in default thereof to serve further six months' R.I.
3. The incident took place on 12-3-1986 at 7-30 a.m. In a street in Chak No.233/G.B. At a distance of 10 miles from Police Station Jaranwala. F.I.R. No.74 was lodged by the complainant Muhammad Yasin at the said police station, at 9-30 a.m.
4. The prosecution, as disclosed in the F.I.R., was that on the day of occurrence, at 7-30 a.m. The complainant Muhammad Yasin alongwith his brothers Muhammad Sharif (injured) and Muhammad Latif were going towards the mosque for taking bath and when they reached in front of the respondent's house, the respondent armed with .12 bore gun and his mother Rashidan Bibi came out of their house when Rashidan Babi exhorted the respondent that the complainant party should not be spared, the respondent thereupon inflicted a blow with the butt of his gun on the right side of Muhammad Sharif's head and he who fell down. On raising of alarm the respondent escaped. The complainant--party, thereafter took Muhammad Sharif m an injured condition to Jaranwalz Hospital, and when they reached in front of the house of Muhammad Siddique, Muhammad Shafique respondent armed with gun appeared from behind the house of Muhammad Siddique and raised Lalkaras that they would not be spared alive and fired a shot from his gun which hit Muhammad Amin deceased in front of his chest, left side of abdomen and left arm; the respondent re-loaded his gun and as the complainant and his brothers were turning away, he fired a second shot which hit on the back side of left thigh and right buttock of Muhammad Amin, who fell down and died at the spot.
5. The motive for committing the offence was that Mst. Hanifan Bibi was unmarried and used to live in the house of his brother Muhammad Amin deceased. Muhammad Shafique respondent, whose house was adjacent to the house of Muhammad Amin deceased, used to stand in front of the complainant's house making obscene gesture towards Mst. Hanifan Bibi and was evil intention towards her; 4/5 months prior to the occurrence while the respondent Muhammad Shafique was standing in front of the complainant's house, they forbade him from standing in front of their house unnecessarily, due to which there was an altercation between the respondent and the complainant's brothers Muhammad Amin deceased and Muhammad Sharif and the respondent was beaten and insulted; whereupon the respondent had threatened that he would take avenge his insult.
6. The respondent was arrested on 23-7-1990, and he led to the recovery of .12 bore gun alongwith 6 live cartridges from his residential house on 5-8-1990.
7. The prosecution in support of his case relied on the ocular testimony of the complainant Muhammad Yasin and Muhammad Sharif P.W., who was injured in the incident : j the both supported the version given in the F.I.R. And were found consistent in their version the trial and their version could not be shaken in the gross-examination.
8. The respondent Muhammad Shafique, in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution case and pleading innocence examined the witnesses, namely, Muhammad Boota, Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Yasin in defence. The trial Court after appraisal of the evidence led at the trial believed on the ocular testimony, the recovery of the gun from the respondent and the motive alleged by the prosecution and finding respondent guilty convicted and sentenced him as stated above.
9. The respondent Muhammad Shafique challenged his conviction and sentence in appeal before the High Court, who after re-appraising the evidence maintained the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, but considering mitigating circumstances, as disclosed in para. 21 of its judgment, reduced the sentence of the respondent from death to that of R.I. For life. The learned High Court also maintained the respondent's conviction and sentence under section 324, P.P.C. And directed that the compensation and fine to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The relevant part of the judgment of the High Court maintaining the findings of the trial Court is reproduced as under:-- "We are of the firm view that in the instant case, the ocular evidence is unanimous and straightforward which is in consonance with medical evidence as well as the recovery and is worthy of implicit reliance. Despite putting Muhammad Yasin complainant P.W.6 and Muhammad Sharif injured P.W.5 to lengthy cross-examination, the defence was unable to make any hole in their confidence inspiring depositions. They have fully explained their presence at the the and venue of occurrence. The complainant is real brother of the deceased as well as the injured Muhammad Sharif P.W.5, and obviously he had no consideration to falsely implicate the appellant in such a heinous offence leaving out the real culprit especially when ace enmity between the appellant and the complainant party is lacking. "
Hence this Criminal Petition No. 161-L of 1996 filed by Muhammad Yasin complainant for enhancement of the sentence of fine and compensation awarded to the respondent Muhammad Shafique and the other Jail Petition No.64 of 1996 filed by the convict-respondent Muhammad Shafique from Jail against his conviction and sentence.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant contended that the learned High Court was not justified in converting sentence of death awarded to the convict-respondent by the trial Court to that of R.I. For life, and prayed that the sentence of death awarded to the respondent be restored.
We see no force in this contention. The learned High Court had converted the sentence of death to R.I. For life on the ground that the motive assigned by the prosecution was feeble and ancient by 4/5 months with no untoward event intervening and as such the motive was shrouded in mystery and therefore capital punishment for the murder of Muhammad Amin deceased was not called for.
11. We are of the view that the learned High Court has given sufficient reasons for not maintaining the sentence of death and instead awarding lesser sentence of imprisonment for life, and the same being a legal sentence, it does not call for interference by this Court.
12. As regards jail petition filed by the respondent, we have gone through the judgments of the learned High Court and the trial Court and perused the record. We are of the view that the learned High Court in re-appraising the evidence proceeded on correct principles of appreciation of evidence and has given cogent reasons for its findings which are neither arbitrary nor perverse, or such that no reasonable person could arrive at, and accordingly do not call for interference by this Court.
In the result both the petitions (Cr.P. 161-L/96 and J.P. 65/96) are dismissed, and the leave is refused.