' SH. RIAZ AHMED, C.J.-This Jail Petition has been filed by Faqir Hussain alias Pappu to assail his conviction and sentences on charges under sections 302/324 read with section 34, Pakistan Penal Code arising from case F.I.R. No,335, dated 28-6-1993 registered with Police Station Factory Area, Sheikhupura for the commission of the murder of Faqir Hussain and causing injuries to Boota P.W.5 both sops of Sher Muhammad complainant.
2. Faqir Hussain alias Pappu (hereinafter to be referred as petitioner) was tried alongwith his father Inayet and Bashir alias Billa by an Additional Sessions Judge at Sheikhupura for the murder of Faqir Hussain and for causing injuries to Boota P.W.5: By means of judgment, dated 4th of April, 1995, petitioner was convicted under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to death with direction to pay an amount of Rs,20,000 as compensation to be paid to legal heirs of deceased Faqir Hussain. Co-accused Bashir alias Billa was convicted under section 337-E (ii), P.P.C. And was sentenced to undergo R.I. For two years with fine of Rs,10,000 as `Daman'/compensation so as to be paid to injured Boota P.W.5. The learned trial Judge also held him entitled for the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. As 'regards Inayet, the learned trial Judge concluded that prosecution had failed to establish its case against him and that he was an old man of 70 years of age, therefore, while extending him the benefit of doubt, he was acquitted of the charges.
3. Against their conviction and sentences ibid, petitioner and his co-accused, namely, Bashir alias Billa filed an appeal while the learned trial Judge also made a Reference to Lahore High Court seeking confirmation of death sentence in terms of section 374, Criminal Procedure Code. During the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, Bashir had reportedly served on his sentence, hence the appeal to his extent had become infructuous. However, through the judgment impugned a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissed petitioner's appeal by maintaining his conviction and sentences and answerered the Reference of the trial Court in the affirmative.
4. Occurrence culminating in death of deceased Faqir Hussain took place on 28-6-1993 at 10 a.m.
In the house of Inayet complainant in village Dhinga situated at a distance of 10 miles from Police Station Factory Area, Sheikupura. F.I.R. Was lodged at the Police Station by Sher Muhammad P.W.4 father of the deceased and the same was recorded by Muhammad Ashraf, M.H.C. Same day at 1- 30 p.m.
5. Sher Muhammad first informant disclosed in his statement that his elder son Boota was married to Kubra daughter of Inayet two years prior to occurrence, and Boota used to reside with his in- laws in Mauza Dheengan. It is alleged that on the fateful day , Boota after performing his duty in the factory returned home and had a quarrel and gave a slap to his wife Kubra, whereupon, Inayet, his son Faqir Hussain and Bashir had given beating to Boota and the later had complained in this context to his father Sher Muhammad. Resultantly, the complainant alongwith Rehmat, Boota and Faqir Hussain left for the Dera of Colonel Javed, and had hardly entered the courtyard of Inayet, when he had raised a Lalkara, whereupon, Faqir Hussain (petitioner) and Bashir co-accused both armed with .12 bore guns had also arrived at the spot. Petitioner is alleged to have fired at deceased Faqir Hussain on his abdomen, whereas, Bashir is stated to have fired Boota on his legs on the front side. On the receipt of fire shots, both sons of the first informant had fallen .'on the ground while the petitioner and his co-accused took to their heels. Faqir Hussain died at the spot and Boota was taken to the hospital. Occurrence besides complainant was also witnessed by Arif, Rehmat and Mst. Munawar Bibi.
6. Petitioner and his co-accused Bashir alias Billa were apprehended on 31-8-1993 and 6-9-1993 respectively. On 12-9-1993, while in custody, petitioner had let the Police and recovered .12 bore gun P5 and the same was taken into possession vide Memo. Exh.P.H.
7. To prove its case at the trial, the prosecution placed reliance upon the ocular testimony furnished by complainant, Boota and Rehmat P.Ws. 4 to 6 respectively. We have heard Mr. M.
Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court at length and have perused the entire relevant record as well as the judgments of both the Courts below. After careful perusal of the testimony of three witnesses, we are of the view that their unanimous depositions ring true, they are consistent on all material points and despite their cross-examination, their credit could not be shaken. It is well understood that complainant who happens to be the father of both the deceased as well as the injured would not tell a lie with regard to the involvement of the culprits responsible for the death and injuries of his sons nor he could be expected to let the real culprit scot-free and substitute the petitioner. Above all, presence of the injured witness cannot be doubted or disputed in any manner.
As regards corroboration, prosecution case stands squarely corroborated through medical evidence as well as the motive. Although a feeble attempt was made to advance the argument that it was a case of self-defence. Unfortunately, there is nothing on record nor, any material was brought forward so as to substantiate the said plea, therefore, we are not convinced as to the theory of self-defence attempted to be canvassed before us by Mr. Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court, thus, we repel the same being preposterous. However, the case has to be examined from the view-point as to whether the petitioner who was a young lad was acting under the influence of his elder or not. Admittedly, Boota son of the complainant was married to Mst. Kubra, daughter of Inayet and was residing in the house of his in-laws. On the fateful day, both had fought with each other and the accused side had given beating to Boota for having slapped his wife Kubra. Boota had complained about his beating at the hands of accused side in the house of his in-laws, whereupon, the complainant side had proceeded to the house of accused side in order to ascertain as to what was the cause of fight. According to the F.I.R. Inayet father of the petitioner had exhorted his son to kill the complainant side, whereupon, petitioner Faqir Hussain fired a single shot from his .12 bore gun at the abdomen of Faqir Hussain deceased son of the first informant which proved to be fatal. It is obvious that the petitioner being a young boy had acted under the influence of his father, and in such-like cases, the extreme penalty of death cannot be imposed. Accordingly, while maintaining his conviction and sentence we alter the death sentence of petitioner Faqir Hussain to that of life imprisonment. However, the amount of compensation to be paid by the petitioner is enhanced from Rs,20,000 to Rs,50,000 or in default to undergo R.I. For two years. No case for interference under section 382-B is made out and thus we decline to extend its benefit in favour of the petitioner.
' Jail petition converted into appeal and allowed in the term indicated ibid, with modification of sentence and enhancement of fine/compensation.