' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---Appellant Naubahar was tried by an Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal on a charge under section 302, P.P.C. For having committed the murder of Habib deceased. Vide judgment dated 15-6-1992 the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty on the said charge and thus, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to death and to pay a fine of Rs,30,000 or in default thereof to suffer R.I. For a term of 5 years. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further directed that in the event of recovery of fine, the same shall be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of Habib deceased. The learned Additional Sessions Judge referred the case to the High Court under section 374, Cr.P.C., while the appellant also filed an appeal. A Division Bench of the Lahore High Court vide judgment dated 25-7-1995 answered the and the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant then invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by way of filing a petition for leave to appeal and vide orders dated 7-4- 1996 this Court granted leave to appeal to reappraise the evidence in this case.
2. The occurrence resulting into the death of Habib deceased took place on 14-2-1990 at 1-00 p.m.
Within the area of Ahmed Baghela situated at a distance of 9 k.m. From the Police Station Harappa in District Sahiwal. The occurrence was reported by Murid, a brother of the deceased at 2-30 p.m.
To Karamat Miran, Sub-Inspector, who recorded his statement on the basis of which F.I.R. Was drawn. Murid complainant stated that he was resident of Ahata Taurez in village Ahmed Baghela while his deceased brother, Ghulam and Farid were also living in the same village. On the fateful day at about 1-00 p.m. The complainant alongwith his brother, Ghulam and one Muhammad Bakhsh son of Mian Fazil was standing in the Bazar of the village near their cattle when the deceased came out from the shop of blacksmith Ramzan where he had gone to get his Reti and Toka sharpened. As soon as Habib came out from the shop with his tools, the appellant emerged at the scene of occurrence armed with a double-barrel .12 bore gun and he raised a Lalkara remarking that he would kill Habib deceased and thereafter fired a shot hitting the right thigh of Habib deceased, who on the receipt of this injury, fell down. The complainant Murid and his brother Ghulam and Muhammad Bakhsh then started to rush towards the appellant chased him, but the appellant succeeded in escaping from the scene of occurrence alongwith the gun. The deceased Habib succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The motive for the crime as narrated by the complainant was that six months before this occurrence the appellant Naubahar had given beating to Farid, a brother of the complainant whereupon the complainant had given slaps to an uncle of the appellant and thus it was stated that on the basis of this grouse the appellant had killed Habib deceased.
3. P.W.9 Dr. Muhammad Raheel conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Habib and found that death had occurred due to heamorrhage on account of injuries to the blood vessels because of the fracture of the femer bone. The doctor also explained that there was extensive and rapid loss of blood resulting into the shock and failure of heart.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the charge and stated that it was an unwitnessed occurrence, the eye-witnesses were inimical and interested and he had been falsely involved in this case. The appellant denied to make any statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and the State as well as the complainant we have gone through the entire record of this case for reappraising the evidence. To prove its case the prosecution had placed reliance upon the ocular testimony furnished by Murid P.W.5, brother of the deceased and P.W.6 Muhammad Bakhsh, who is not related. The learned counsel for the appellant criticized the ocular testimony and stated that its nature was interested, and therefore, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have brought on the record independent corroborative evidence to lend strength to it. The learned counsel further argued that one crime empty was recovered from the spot and thereafter, the appellant in custody had led the police and had got recovered a double-barrel .12 bore gun from his house and the same had been sent to the forensic expert, but the prosecution had failed to produCe the report of the forensic expert on ,record. It was thus urged that an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution for withholding the report and it will be presumed that the empty had not been shot from the aforesaid weapon and hence no corroborative evidence exists on the record to believe the prosecution version. We have carefully examined this aspect of the case in the light of the evidence on record, but we are of the view that both the eye-witnesses were present and had seen the occurrence. The visit of the deceased to the shop of Ramzan blacksmith is also supported through the recovery of blood-stained Reti lying at the spot P.W.6 admits that in the past there had been a dispute over land with the appellant and others, but a compromise had taken place. In our view, this circumstance alone is not sufficient to brand Muhammad Badshah as an interested witness.
Muhammad Bakhsh P.W. Satisfactorily explained his presence in the Bazar of the village and in our view no motive exists on the record on the basis of which it can be safely inferred that he had any motive to falsely implicate the appellant in this case. The first informant Murid, brother of the deceased has also satisfactorily explained his presence at the scene of occurrence and we have no doubt in our mind about his presence at the scene of occurrence. Furthermore, both these witnesses were cross-examined at length, but the defence failed to elicit anything in his favour.
6. To sum up we are of the view that the prosecution had proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt against the appellant, who had killed the deceased in daylight in the Bazar of the village and on this basis as well the question of mistaken identity also becomes irrelevant.
7. Adverting to the motive for the commission of crime as narrated by the first, informant, we are of the view that in the first round about six months before this occurrence, it was the appellant who had given beating to Farid, a brother of the first informant and the deceased. In retaliation the first informant had given slaps to uncle of the appellant. In our view, this motive seems to be very weak and had it been the real motive, the first informant would have been the target of the attack rather than Habib deceased. On account of these circumstances, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive as sought to be set up. It is shrouded in mystery and what immediately transpired before the occurrence is unknown. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that it is not a fit case for the award of extreme penalty of death. Thus, while dismissing the appeal, we would modify and alter the sentence of death into one of life imprisonment. The appellant is, thus, sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs,2,00,000 or in default thereof to suffer R.I. For a term of two years. The amount of fine, if recovered, shall be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. The appellant shall also be entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
Sentence reduced.