' IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN CHAUDHRY J.---A criminal case F.I.R. No,252 dated 25-11-1993 Ex.P.G. For offences under sections 302, 148, 149, 337-A, 337-F and 452, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Sarai Mughal, District Kasur on the report of Javed Iqbal against Arshad Ali and others with the allegation that on 23-11-1993 at 2-00 p.m. His father Muhammad Sharif proceeds to the jointly owned Tubewell for providing water to the cattle. The cattle trespassed into the crop of Masta son of Hakim Ali. Hot words were exchanged between Masta and Muhammad Sharif. Muhammad Sharif, father of complainant returned alongwith cattle. After sometime Masta, Sohna, Hakim Ali, Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad Sadiq and Liaqat Ali, accused all armed with clubs, Inayat carrying 12 bore gun came to the cattle shed of complainant where complainant alongwith his father Muhammad Sharif, Taj Din, Razzaq, Arshad Ali and Mst. Noor Bibi were present. On raising lalkara by Masta that Muhammad Sharif be taught a lesson for abusing him, Inayat fired a shot which hit Muhammad Sharif in his abdomen who fell down. When Razzaq, Taj Din, Arshad Ali and Mst. Noor Bibi tried to rescue him, all the accused injured them. On the alarm raised by the complainant party many persons from the locality came there whereupon the accused escaped from the spot.
Muhammad Sharif was removed to the hospital where he died at 9-00 p.m.
' Criminal case Exh.P.G. Was registered in above terms at Police Station Sarai Mughal, District Kasur on the report of Javed Iqbal who later testified as P.W.S.
2. All the accused were found guilty in the case and they were sent up to face trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki, Kasur. Charge under sections 148, 452/149, 302/149 and 337-F(i), P.P.C. Was framed against the accused. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial whereafter prosecution examined Muhammad Hanif P.W .1. Dr. Muhammad Shafique P.W.2, Dr. Ashfaq Ahmad Joya P.W.3, Dr. Muhammad Ashraf P.W.4, laved Iqbal complainant P.W.5, Shah Muhammad Constable P.W.6, Razzaq and Arshad eye-witnesses of incident as P.W.7 and P.W.8, Dr. Habib-ur-Rehman P.W.9, Muhammad Yasin A.S.-I. P.W.10, Muhammad Akbar H.C. P.W.11, Syed Manzar Ali Shah, Deputy Superintendent of Police P.W .12, Zaheer-ud-Din P.W.13, Muhammad Rafique Halqa Patwari P.W.15 and Dr. Abid Karim as P.W.
15.
3. Dr. Abid Karim P.W.15 conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Sharif son of Chiragh Din on 26-11-1993 at 10-00 a.m. And noted the following injuries:-- (1). Mid line surgical wound (vide operation notes) 25 c.m. Long on interior abdominal wall with 25 intact black stitches.
(2) Surgical colostomy wound (vide operation notes) 6 x 2 c.m. On left side of abdomen at the level of 6 c.m. To the left of umbilicus.
(3) Open wound 12 x 8 c.m. With lacerated margins in lower abdomen 2 c.m. From mid line and 32 c.m. Below left nipple. Abdominal viscera were visible in the depth of wound. Multiple pellet wounds each 0.5 x 0.7 c.m. Around the main wound in area of 29 to 17 c.m.
(4) Drain wound (vide operation notes) in right iliac fossa 2 x 1 c.m.
(5) A lacerated wound 0.5 x 0.5 c.m. On back of left fore-arm, 11 c.m. Above wrist and 16 c.m. Below elbow with inverted margins and color of abrasions.
4. Copy of post-mortem examination report Exh.P.W. Was tendered in evidence by the Medical Officer.
5. Javed Iqbal P.W.5 son of the deceased had lodged complaint Exh.P.G. At Police Station. He re- affirmed the narrative contained in the F.I.R. Razzaq and Arshad who were injured in the incident corroborated the testimony of complainant.
6. Syed Manzar Ali Shah, Deputy Superintendent of Police had also partly investigated the case.
7. Zaheer-ud-Din had testified about the recovery of 12 bore gun Exh.P.9 at the instance of Inayat accused.
8. The accused in their statements recorded under section 342, Cr. P.C. Denied the prosecution case against them and pleaded their false involvement in the case. Inayat accused in reply to the question "why this case against you and as to why the P.Ws. Have deposed against you", took the following stand:-- "The witnesses are false. The occurrence took place on 23-11-1993; allegedly some P.Ws. Were said to have been injured but nobody did bother to inform the police till 25-11-1993. During this period they collaborated with each other and constituted a wrong story and involved me in this case, due to my some relationship with some of the other co-accused because on that day in the morning at about 9-00 a.m. The other co-accused gave a beating to the complainant party. Due to that reason I was also involved in this case falsely."
9. Trial Court after conclusion of trial believed the prosecution case and convicted Inayat under section 302-B, P.P.C. And sentenced him to death with a compensation amounting to Rs,50,000 under section 544-A, Cr. P . C .
' Arshad, Muhammad Sharif, Inayat son of Khan Bahadar, Muhammad Sadiq, Liaqat Ali and Sohna accused were convicted under section 337-F(iii), P P.C. And sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. However, they were extended the benefit of time served under section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
10. Inayat son of Akbar convict, filed Criminal Appeal No,883 of 1996. Arshad Ali, Muhammad Sharif, Inayat son of Khan Bahadar, Muhammad Sadiq, Liaqat and Sohna filed Criminal Appeal No,898 of 1996. Trial Court also referred the matter to this Court for confirmation or otherwise of sentence of death imposed to Inayat convict.
11. Criminal Appeal No,898 of 1996 was disposed of by another Bench as the convicts had undergone the sentences imposed on them. Learned counsel for Inayat-convict and the State have been heard today.
12. It was argued by the appellant that the criminal case was registered with unexplained delay of two days and the complainant party in collusion with police fabricated a false version of the incident and got registered the case against a large number of accused. It was also submitted that defence version was supported by record and should be. Given preference over the prosecution story. Learned counsel for the appellant after arguing the case on the foregoing lines for sometime, submitted that he would not be challenging conviction of the appellant but would be praying for awarding of lesser sentence to the convict as it was not a premeditated murder and the appellant had no motive and the incident was a sudden flare up.
' The State, however supported the impugned judgment.
13. Since conviction of the appellant for offence under section 302-B, Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 has not been challenged, we need not advert to other aspects of the case and record has been examined and evaluated in the light of prayer made by the appellant for imposition of lesser sentence on him.
14. The parties are ordinary agriculturist families and there was no serious background of enmity between them. The triggering event of the incident was cattle tresspass and damage to crops of the accused party. As is common in such cases, damage to crops gave rise to a verbal duel between the parties, which aggravated into a free-for-all between them, the culmination of which was firing at the deceased. The deceased and a number of other persons on both sides were injured in the fight. After careful and dispassionate assessment of the record, we have found the incident to be sudden and free fight between the parties which had taken place without prior planning of any sort. The deceased in this case was taken in an injured condition to hospital where he died but, surprisingly, for two days after the incident, matter was not reported to the police. The complainant had taken considerable time to piece together a story which suited him and overdoing by the complainant in the case was quite palpable. Therefore, we are of the view that awarding of maximum sentence of death to the convict in this would be unsafe and inappropriate.
15. As a consequence, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for charge under section 302-B, Pakistan Penal Code, we impose sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life on the convict- appellant. Benefit of provisions of section 382-B shall be extended to the convict as well. The sentence awarded to the accused by the trial Court is modified accordingly. The convict shall pay compensation amounting to Rs, one lac to legal heirs of the deceased. In case of default, the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
' The convict's appeal is dismissed with above modification in sentence awarded to him.
' Murder reference is answered in the negative.