IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN CHAUDHRY, J.- Muhammad Arshad son of Manzoor Hussain aged 25 years was awarded penalty of death by judgment dated 2.6.1992 passed by Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura for murder of Rehmat having been committed in the area of village Chambal Police Station Khanqah Dogran District Sheikhupura on 19.3.1991.
2. The incident took place at 5.30 p.m. In the area of village Chambal and case FIR No. 146, dated 19.3.1991 Ex.PG was recorded on the statement of Noor Muhammad PW9 at Police Station Khanqah Dogran District Sheikhupura. According to first informant he was cultivator. Rehmat son of Rora resided alongwith his wife Mst. Mehran in his neighbourhood and was issuless. Manzoor Hussain father of Muhammad Arshad had left village about 20 years earlier. Said Manzoor Hussain had six children and one daughter Mst. Firdos, whom they wanted to be married to son of Mst. Rajaan who did not agree to the proposal. Rehmat Ali deceased was having good relations with Mst. Rajeen and Arshad and Manzoor had called upon Rehmat to assist them in their endeavor but Mst. Rajaan did not agree and the marriage could not materialize. On the day of occurrence first informant alongwith Pir Muhammad (not produced) and Riasat Ali PW8 were present in the house of Rehmat when at 5.30 p.m. Rehmat un-chained the door at the knocking of door when Arshad shouted that he would be taught a lesson for no helping them in the marriage and gave a chhurri blow to Rehmat which hit him on the left writ of Rehmat. Second blow hit on the neck of Rehmat who died at the spot. According to complainant he alongwith Pir Muhammad and Riasat and Mst. Mahran widow of Rehmat over powered Arshad and reported the matter to police.
3. Muhammad Arshad was sent up to face trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura where prosecution examined 10 witnesses to prove its case.
4. Dr. Shaukat Hayat, Medical Officer PW4 conducted post-mortem examined on the dead-body of Rehmat and found the following injuries:
(1) An incised wound 4 cm x 0.2 cm x bone deep on the left side of head mid-part close to midline.
(2) A stab wound 4 cm x 1.5 cm on the left side of neck mid part 2 cm away from mid line.
(3) An incised wound 2 cm x 0.2 cm x. Muscle deep on the palmer aspect' of the left hand between the thumb an index finger.
(4) A stab wound 2.5 cm x .2 cm on the right front of chest outer and upper part 6 cm above and outer to right nipple.
(5) Slab wound 1 cm x 0.1 cm on the ffont and outer most part of right chest on the interior axillary line 4 cm outer to injury No. 4.
5. Karamat Ali PW1. Muhammad Akram PW2, Saeed Akhtar PW3, Mushtaq Hussain PW4, Muhammad Arshad Mehmood Butt PWS. Mehran Bibi PW7, Riasat Ali PWS, Noor Muhammad PW9 and Liaqat Ali, Inspector/SHO appeared as PW-10. The ocular account in this case was furnished by Mst. Mehran, Riasat Ali and Noor Muhammad while Liaqat Ali, Inspector had testified about various steps taken by him during investigation of the case.
6. Muhammad Arshad in his examination under Section 342, Cr.P.C, denied the prosecution case and stated that witnessed had deposed falsely against him.
7. The learned trial Court believed the prosecution case against him and sentenced the appellant to death. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. One Lac. In default in payment of fine, the convict was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
8. Muhammad Arshad appealed against the conviction and sentence awarded to him while (the learned trial Court referred the matter under Section 374, Cr.P.C, for confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of death awarded to Muhammad Arshad.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant as well as State have been heard today.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that matter at some length and thereafter submitted that since the occurrence stood admitted by Muhammad Arshad himself, he would be praying for lesser sentence to be awarded to the convict. In this context he submitted that there was absolutely no enmity between the accused and the deceased and the accused who was a young person had sought assistance of Rehmat is prevailing upon Mst. Rajaan to marry her son to Firdos, sister of Muhammad Arshad and that Rahmat levelled serious allegation of bad character which enraged the young man who picked up a knife from the house and gave blows to Rehmat and that occurrence had taken place due to sudden and grave provocation and in this view of the matter, maximum penalty of death was uncalled far. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by the appellant.
11. The first information report Ex.PG was lodged by Noor Muhammad PW9 who in his examination in chief stated that he had simply informed the police that Arshad had murdered Rehmat Musalli. He did not say anything about the motive. Riasat Ali PW8 did not know the accused and both of them were not naturally present in the house of Rehmat at the relevant time and have not given any explanation for their presence in that house. It is claimed by the prosecution that Arshad was over powered by the PWs. But police diary was silent in this regard. Even the police dairy was prepared by a person who was not the Investigating Officer. The case prima fade was registered after preliminary investigation. The accused, at the time of incident, had given blow to Rehmat only and had not caused any injury to Mst. Mehran or other prosecution witnesses though they claimed that they had over powered him. A logical inference would be that these witnesses were not present at the spot. What transpired immediately prior to attack thus would be a matter of guess.
Muhammad Arshad was not resident of that village and it is not the prosecution case that any body had seen him coming to the village or the house of Rehmat while carrying a 'knife/churri.
Possibility could not be ruled out that altercation followed between Rehmat and Arshad whereafter Arshad was enraged and he injured Rehmat who held some sort of away over Rajaan, aunt of Arshad. It was quite probable that Rehmat expressed certain expletives about sister of Arshad whereafter, he flew into rage and committed the offence. Since the initiation of occurrence is some what clouded, we are inclined to give a marginal benefit of this fact to the convict.
12. For the foregoing reason we, while maintaining the conviction of Arshad for offence under Section 302 PPC, convert the sentence of death to imprisonment for life. The sentence of fine imposed on the convict is not warranted by law on the subject and the same is also remitted.
However, the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. One Lad as compensation under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C, to legal heirs of Rehmat deceased. In case of default, he shall undergo six months' S.I.
13. Post conviction relief for time served as envisaged by Section 382-B, Cr.P.C, shall be extended to the convict.