' This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No, 96-J of 1998 filed by Nazir Ahmad, who was convicted and sentenced by learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad on 4-11-1998 to undergo life imprisonment under section 302-C, P.P.C. For the murder of Khushi Muhammad with a further direction to pay Rs, 30,000 as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also granted to the appellant.
2. This is a Jail appeal. I appoint Kh. Muhammad Iqbal Butt, Advocate to defend the appellant at State expense.
3. The occurrence in this case took place on 9-10-1996 at 10-30 a.m. Near Government Elementary School, Dogar Chowk Gulberg-B, Faisalabad and the matter was reported to the police by Sagheer Anjum P.W.7, real son of the deceased on the same day at 7-10 p.m. Vide F.I.R. Exh. P.H.
4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the deceased Khushi Muhammad and accused Nazir Ahmad earned their livelihood by doing labour and they resided in Chak No, 57/JB Khiala Kalan. On 9-10-1996 at about 10-30 a.m., Sagheer Anjum (P.W.7) and, his father deceased Khushi Muhammad reached Dogar Chowk in the area of Gulberg-B and the deceased Khushi Muhammad sat down along the wall of Government Elementary School. By that time, accused Nazir Ahmad armed with a wooden Chapti (plank) also reached there on arrival he declared that he will teach a lesson to the deceased for insulting his wife and immediately the accused gave two blows with the wooden Chapti (plank) on the head of deceased Khushi Muhammad who fell down. The accused Nazir Ahmad gave third blow with plank on the back of left shoulder of deceased. Sagheer Anjum P.W.7, Zafar Iqbal (given up P.W.) and Bashir Ahmad P.W.8 were also present there and they also saw the occurrence and went running to the spot and tried to catch the accused Nazir Ahmad. The accused Nazir Ahmad succeeded in running away. Sagheer Ahmad P.W.7 put the deceased in a Rickshaw and took him to Allied Hospital, Faisalabad for treatment.
' Zahid Raza, who is paternal cousin of the complainant was also called there.
5. The motive alleged behind the occurrence it that four days before, the incident the deceased Khushi Muhammad had a quarrel with accused Nazir Ahmad and his wife and the deceased had abused and pushed the wife of accused Nazir Ahmad. It is alleged that on account of this annoyance, the accused gave injuries to the deceased.
6. The Investigating Officer after reaching at the spot took into possession blood-stained earth vide memo. Exh. P.J. Appellant was arrested in this case on 21-10-1996. He got recovered wooden plank P.I blood stained which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P.B.
7. Prosecution in order to prove its case produced nine witnesses in all. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., who had taken the plea of right of self- defence.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has read before me the prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And makes the following submissions. He submits that there are two eye-witnesses in this case namely Sagheer Anjum real son of the deceased examined as P.W.7, Bashir Ahmad examined as P.W.8, a relation of the deceased and one Zafar Iqbal was given up by the prosecution. He submits that in fact, both the eye-witnesses were not present at the spot, that complainant resided at a distance of 10112 k.Ms away from the place of occurrence and the other eye-witness Bashir Ahmad was also not resident near to place of occurrence. He submits that even the learned trial Court has disbelieved the motive the recovery in the instant case. He also submits that learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under section 302(c), P.P.C. And awarded maximum sentence which is not just one in the circumstances of the case. He also submits that plea taken by the appellant gets support from the statement of Dr. Muhammad Nawaz P.W.1, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State defends the judgment of learned trial Court and submits that the story put forward by the appellant is not probable one.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence recorded by the learned trial Court. In the instant case, the weapon used by the appellant is not a lethal one like "Churri", "Dagger" or any fire-arm. It was a wooden .Plank, according to the prosecution story which was used for causing injuries to the deceased. It seems that the deceased must had given some provocation to the appellant and the occurrence had taken place at a spur of the moment and in order to teach the lesson to the deceased the appellant gave two and three blows with a wooden plank (URDU TEXT) which is not a lethal weapon or is used in murder cases.
Motive and recovery has already been disbelieved by the learned trial Court. I have also gone through the plea taken by the appellant which in my opinion is not plausible one because according to him he was given a blow with a "Taisa" (URDU TEXT) by the deceased which according to the appellant he held it on his hand, then he must have received any injury on his hand but there is none. In my view, both the prosecution and .The defence are telling a lie and have not come to Court with clean hands and true fact od 'lie case. As I have held earlier, some provocation must have been given by the deceased to the appellant, therefore, this occurrence had taken place.
Although, the appellant was convicted by the learned trial Court under section 302(c), P.P.C. But maximum sentence has been awarded to the appellant which is not just one in the circumstances of the case.
11. In this view of the matter, the conviction of the appellant is maintained under section 302(c), P.P.C. But his sentence is reduced from life imprisonment to 10 years R.I. Compensation of Rs, 30,000 is also reduced to Rs, 10,000 in default thereof six months S.I. With these observations, this appeal stands disposed of.
Sentence reduced.