' KH. MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---Through this judgment we intend to dispose of Murder Reference No,6 of 1996 and Criminal Appeal No,46 of 1996 filed by Ahmad Sher. Who was convicted and sentenced under section 302 P.P.C., for the murder of Bashir Ahmad by the learned Sessions Judge Bahawalnagar, vide his judgment dated 24-4-1996, to undergo death sentence with a fine of Rs,50,000 (fifty thousand) or in default thereof one year R.I. Fine if recovered, was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C.
2. ' The occurrence in this case took place on 3-11-1993, at 5-30 p.m. In the house of the complainant situated in Mauza Moni Dhani, 9 km. From the Police Station Mandi Sadiq Ganj, District Bahawalnagar. Qasim Ali, real father of the deceased, complainant (P.W.6) lodged the F.I.R. Exh.PB on the same day at 6-30 p.m.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case as narrated by Qasim Ali, complainant in Exh.PB were that on the day of occurrence at 5-30 p.m., he was present in his house along with his son Bashir Ahmad, where Ahmad Sher accused armed with .12 bore single-barrel, gun came and raised Lalkara that Bashir Ahmad would not be spared today. In the meantime, Asghar, Ismail and Muhammad Aslam son of Ashiq resident of Lala Amar Singh also came there. Ahmad Sher accused fired a shot with his gun which hit Bashir Ahmad on his chest who fell on the ground, second fire shot by Ahmad Sher appellant hit on his left arm. When complainant along with P.Ws. Tried to apprehend Ahmad Sher, he raised 'Lalkara' that if any body came near him, he would be killed. Bashir Ahmad died at the spot due to injuries sustained by him. Ahmad Sher accused/appellant ran away from the spot.
4. Motive behind the present occurrence was that 12/13 years prior to the present occurrence one Muhammad Arif brother of Ahmad Sher, appellant was murdered Fateh Muhammad, father of the deceased Ahmad Sher got a case registered against the complainant and his son under section 302, P.P.C., in which they were challaned. Later on due to intervention of the brotherhood of both the parties the matter was compromised, but according to the complainant, Ahmad Sher nourished a grudge in his mind and so committed the murder of his son to take revenge.
5. After registration of the case the Investigating Officer came to the spot and collected the blood- stained earth vide memo Exh.PC. He arrested Ahmad Sher, appellant on 14-11-1993, who on 18-11- 1993 led to the recovery of .12 bore gun P.3, which was taken into possession vide memo. PE.
6. Prosecution in order to prove its case produced 9 witnesses in all. Amongst them two were eye- witnesses, namely Qasim Ali (P.W.6) father of Bashir Ahmad (deceased) and Muhammad Aslam (P.W.5) a friend of the deceased while Muhammad Asghar and Ismail P.Ws. Were given up.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has read before us the prosecution evidence and also statement of the appellant recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein he had claimed innocence and stated that the murder was a blind one and he was not present at the spot and was falsely implicated due to previous enmity and suspicion.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant after doing this exercise submits that -the case against the appellant is totally false and he has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. No crime empty was taken from the spot which may connect the appellant with the alleged recovery of gun.
Which he had got recovered from his house. He further submits that P.W.5 Muhammad Aslam was not the resident of the place of occurrence but he was resident of Lala Amar Singh, which is at a distance of 9 km. From the place of occurrence. He further submits that he did not make any' statement before the police. He also argues that he was a chance witness and in fact he was not present at the spot. After the occurrence he went to his house. He also submits that many persons from the nearby houses had reached the place of occurrence but no body from them was cited or examined as an eye-witness. As far as Qasim Ali P.W. Is concerned, learned counsel submits that he was the father of the deceased and naturally he was an interested witness. He also submits that motive in this case is not proved for the reason that in earlier murder case of the brother of the appellant the matter was compromised so there was no question of committing the murder of the deceased on the part of the appellant. Lastly he submits that motive in this case shrouded in mystery and this is a case of lesser sentence and not of death sentence.
9. On the other hand learned counsel for the State submits that prosecution has proved its case through ocular account, corroborated by medical evidence and motive in the instant case and also supports the judgment of the learned trial Court.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the evidence recorded by the trial Court. In the instant case the occurrence took place at 5-30 p.m. In the house of the complainant, while the Police Station was at a distance of 9 km. The matter was reported to the Police within one hour promptly. There was no question of consultation or deliberation on the part of the complainant party. It is a case of single accused therefore, no question of substitution also arises in this case. Qasim Ali P.W. Is the most natural witness and he is a star witness of the prosecution because the occurrence had taken place in his house.. There was no question of mistaken identity also because the parties were very well known to each other. For the sake of arguments, if we do not believe the statement of Muhammad Aslam P.W. Then there is no question to disbelieve the statement of Qasim Ali P.W., although, he is father of the deceased but is very natural witness and mere relationship of a P.W. With the deceased does not discard his testimony.
Furthermore, the Court has to see the quality of evidence and not the quantity of evidence.
Conviction can also be maintained on the statement of a single witness, if it inspires confidence. In our considered view, the statement of Qasim Ali P.W. Is trustworthy and is believable from all angles. His statement is corroborated by medical evidence because .The deceased, according to the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination, had got two fire arm injuries on his person and this corroborates the ocular testimony. It has not been denied by the parties that brother of Ahmad Sher appellant was murdered by the complainant party in which the deceased was also named as one of the accused. It is possible that although, in the murder case of the brother of the appellant, the complainant party was acquitted due to compromise but the appellant being the real brother of Muhammad Arif deceased who was murdered by the complainant party including Bashir Ahmad deceased, in order to take revenge and for his family honour, committed the murder of Bashir Ahmad deceased. In our view, this is a mitigating circumstance in favour of the appellant because in our village life, if one's dear one is murdered and the accused are acquitted for one reason or the other, the near relatives of the deceased party and other people from the vicinity do ridicule to the deceased's, family that why they are not the taking the revenge for the murder of their dear one. Another reason for lesser sentence in the instant case can be that according to the F.I.R. The earlier murder took place 12/13 years prior to the present occurrence. Between this intervening period no untoward incident took place and we do not think that the same can be treated as an immediate cause for the present murder. The possibility of motive shrouded in mystery also cannot be ruled out and also one cannot 'say that what happened just before the occurrence. Reliance in this case is also placed on the cases of Abdul Karim v. The State (1997 M LD 1363) D.B., Baqir Shah v. The State (1994 PCr.LJ 1541) and Atif Shahzad v. The State (1999 PCr.LJ 365).
11. In this view of the matter and considering the above said circumstances, although, we maintain the conviction of the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C. But convert his sentence into life imprisonment. Murder Reference is replied in the negative and death sentence is not confirmed. It is further ordered that the appellant shall pay Rs,50,000 (fifty thousand) as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, in default thereof, he will have to undergo six months S.1. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is also granted. With the above modification, the Murder Reference and Criminal Appeal are disposed of.
Death sentence awarded to the appellant is not confirmed.