' By this judgment Criminal Appeal No,26 of 2000 filed by Muhammad Iqbal son of Wazir Ahmad, caste Sheikh, resident of Chak No,6, Rakh Dullaywala, P.S. Dullaywala, District Bhakkar and Ghulam Qasim son of Noor Hussain, caste Sheikh, resident of Chak No,2 of Rakh Rahota Khanser, P.S. Dullaywala. District Bhakkar is being disposed of which has emerged from the judgment passed by Mehr Mumtaz Hussain Lali, Sessions Judge, Bhakkar dated 16-12-1999 whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and were ordered to pay an amount of Rs,50,000 each, as compensation and in default of payment of fine to undergo one year's S.-I. Each under section 544-A, Cr.P.C., to the legal heirs of the deceased.
' They were also given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. The facts of the prosecution case were disclosed in the case bearing F.I.R. No,16 dated 26-3-1998, registered under section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. With Police Station Dullaywala (Exh. PD) recorded at the instance of Muhammad Iqbal son of Gul Jahan, caste Sheikh, resident of Chak No,2, Rakh Dullaywala.
' In accordance with the contents of the F.I.R. Exh. PD, on 26-3-1998 at about Peshi Wela in the area of Rakh Dullaywala when Muhammad Iqbal (complainant) alongwith his brother Muhammad Ramzan, Bahadur and Atta Ullah sons of Raza Muhammad, residents of village Jhammat South was coming back after earning the livelihood and after passing the Dera of Muhammad Noor son of Fateh Muhammad, resident of Dakhli Dullaywala reached at the passage situated in the land owned by Muhammad Hussain Jhammat, Muhammad Ramzan was going at some distance ahead of Muhammad Iqbal, etc., while Muhammad Iqbal, etc., were following him. Meanwhile Muhammad lqbal and Ghulam Qasim, the appellants, who were ambushed in wheat crop, emerged all of a sudden while armed with .12 bore gun, and raised Lalkara to kill Muhammad Ramzan whereupon lqbal fired with his .12 bore gun which hit on right thigh and ankle. The second shot was fired by Ghulam Qasim which hit on the left thigh. When Muhammad Ramzan had fallen, Iqbal and Ghulam Qasim came near to Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad Iqbal again fired a shot which hit on left shoulder and left side of neck of Muhammad Ramzan, then Ghulam Qasim also fired the second shot which hit on left ankle of Muhammad Ramzan. Thereafter, Muhammad lqbal fired a shot which hit on the big toe and the adjacent toe of Muhammad Ramzan. Since Muhammad lqbal, Bahadur and Atta Ullah were empty-handed, therefore, out of fear they did not go near Muhammad Ramzan, however, they witnessed the occurrence while Muhammad lqbal and Ghulam Qasim fled away towards the South. Muhammad Ramzan was being removed to Civil Hospital, Dullaywala but he yielded to the injuries in the way.
' The motive behind the occurrence was that Muhammad Iqbal had suspected that the deceased had developed illicit relations with Mst. Sughran his wife and because of this rancur Muhammad Iqbal and Ghulam Qasim committed the Qatl of Muhammad Ramzan in furtherance of their common intention.
3. Atta Muhammad, Inspector/SHO, Police Station Dullaywala after recording the F.I.R. (Exh. PD) on 26-3-1998 at the police station, proceeded to conduct the investigation of this case. He made arrangements for post-mortem examination. After preparing the Injury statement Exh. PK and Inquest Report Exh. PL he collected the bloodstained earth from the place of occurrence, made it into a sealed parcel and took into his possession vide recovery memo. Exh. PE. He further collected a pair of Safety belonging to the deceased and took the same into his possession vide recovery memo. Exh. PF. He collected three crime empties P-6/1-3, a plastic wad and two live bullets P/7/1-2 and took into his possession vide recovery memo. Exh. PG.
' On 27-3-1998 he took into his possession the last worn clothes of the deceased P-8 to P-10 vide memo. Exh. PH. He further took into his possession a lead of bullet vide recovery memo. Exh. PI sent by the Medical Officer.
' On 31-3-1998 the abovesaid Inspector arrested Ghulam Qasim and Iqbal appellants. On 3-4-1999 Muhammad lqbal appellant after disclosure made by him led to the recovery of gun P-1 alongwith two live cartridges and a bag of Raxine P-3 from his house which were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh. PB. On the same day Ghulam Qasim appellant also led to the recovery of gun P-4 from the reads/bushes at Dulla Moor, which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. PC. He got the site-plan Exh.PA prepared from the Halqa Patwari, handed over the case property to the Moharrar of the Police Station, recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses and on completion of necessary investigation he submitted the challan in the Court.
4. When the trial commenced, the prosecution produced ten witnesses in order to establish its case based upon motive, ocular account, medical evidence, recoveries and other circumstances. The reports of Chemical Examiner Exh. PN, Exh. PO, reports of Serologist Exh.PP, Exh.P.Q. And that of the Forensic Science Laboratory Exh.P.R., were produced as documentary evidence ' Muhammad Iqbal (complainant) while appearing as P.W.7 repeated almost the contents of the F.I.R., lodged at his instance. He further disclosed that the sister of Muhammad Iqbal appellant is his wife and his sister is wife of brother of Muhammad Iqbal appellant.
' Bahadur son of Raza Muhammad (P.W.-8) furnished the, ocular account and deposed about attesting of the recovery memos Exh. PE, Exh,PF and Exh.PG prepared in connection with collection of bloodstained earth, a pair of Chappel, empties, lead of bullets and used plastic like rubber. He further deposed about attestation of recovery memos. Exh. PH and Exh. PI prepared in connection with taking into possession the last worn clothes of the deceased and lead bullets sent by the doctor to the Investigating Officer.
5. Dr. Abdul Razzaq Ghauri (P.W.-9) deposed about the injuries 17 in number found on the body of the deceased and in his opinion the cause of death was due to Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 resulting in severe haemorrhage and shock which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of life and all the injuries were caused by fire-arm. Mushtaq Ahmad H/C (P.W.-1) Moharrar of the Police Station, Hameed Ullah Khan (P.W.-2), Mushtaq Hussain Patwari (P.W.-3), Muhammad Khan, recovery witness (P.W.-4), Karam Dad Constable (P.W.-5), Muhammad Yousaf F.C. (P.W.-6), also appeared for the prosecution while Atta Muhammad, Inspector/S.H.O. (P.W.-10) explained the investigation conducted by him.
6. When the appellants were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations as levelled by the prosecution and professed about their innocence. They advanced this version that it was an'unseen occurrence, that the deceased had many enemies; that two daughters of Bahadur son of Qadir Bakhsh paternal uncle of Muhammad Ramzan decead were abducted by Sultan and in retaliation Muhammad Ramzan abducted the daughter of Sultan which gave birth to criminal litigation; that about 4/5 years prior to the instant occurrence the aunt of Muhammad Ramzan deceased was abducted by the father of Muhammad Iqbal appellant and two years prior to this occurrence another occurrence took place between the families of lqbal and the deceased, therefore, due to this enmity Iqbal appellant has been falsely involved and even both the prosecution witnesses are interested and inimical witnesses.
' Muhammad Iqbal appellant produced copy of F.I.R. Bearing No,431 Exh. DD and closed his defence.
7. At the close of the trial, the learned trial Court arrived at this conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case, therefore, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant record placed before me.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R. Which forces to believe that it was recorded after some preliminary investigation; that the prosecution case has been advanced further by the interested and inimical witnesses; that the presence of the eye- witnesses at the spot is doubtful; that there are material discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses; that there are dishonest improvements, that the ocular account furnished by the eye-witnesses is belied by the medical evidence, that there is a violation of the provisions of section 103 of the Cr.P.C. In case of recoveries; that the Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Exh. P R cannot be treated as a corroborative piece of evidence; and that the deceased was not Masoom ud Dam, therefore, the appellants could not be convicted under section 302-B, P.P.C. And if at all it was believed that the prosecution had proved its case, then the conviction could be passed under section '302(c), P.P.C. Anyhow, the prosecution failed to establish its case and being so the appellants are entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt.
10. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel submitted that the prosecution case had been established beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the learned trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants.
11. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been taken into consideration with care and caution and thrashed out deeply in the light of the record and it appears that there is no force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants because the testimony of the witnesses cannot be discarded merely on account of relationship inter se the parties. Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.-7) and Bahadur (P.W.-8) furnished the ocular account quite consistently on all material aspects which found corroboration from the medical evidence and the recoveries as well.
12. Anyhow, the point for examination is as to what is the impact of the motive itself, advanced by the prosecution. The motive advanced by the prosecution was that Muhammad Iqbal appellant suspected that the deceased had illicit liaison with Mst. Sughran Bibi the wife of the appellant. It means that the prosecution itself believed the fact that the Qatl had taken place on the question of family honour. Therefore, wheh the case was established by the prosecution the appellants could be convicted under section 302(c), P.P.C.
13. Therefore, the conviction passed by the learned trial Court is converted from section 302(b), P.P.C., to 302(c), P.P.C., and the sentence of the appellants is reduced to 7 years, however, the amount of Rs,50,000 as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Imposed by the learned trial Court on both the appellants 'is maintained.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.