' This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,691 of 2001 and Criminal Revision No,330 of 2001 directed against the judgment dated 31-3-2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, whereby he convicted the appellant under section 302(c), P.P.C. And sentenced him to undergo 10 years R.I. With further direction to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation as required under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default thereof six months R.I. Benefit of section 382-B,. Cr.P.C. Was also granted to the appellant.
2. Brief facts as narrated in the F.I.R. By the complainant Navid Ahmad are that on 7-5-2000 one Usman son of Malik Muhammad Sharif deceased came to the complainant and told that deceased had not returned to his house on which the complainant and Usman came to the Bungalow No,366, N. Block Johar Town, Lahore which was under construction. In the bath room of a residential room the deceased was lying downward dead in the pool of blood. Police was informed in this regard.
3. After getting information about the occurrence the local police completed all the necessary formalities. Thereafter Munir Ahmad; Inspector/S.G.O. Alongwith his subordinates proceeded to the place of occurrence. He prepared injury statement Exh.P.G. And inquest report Exh.P.H. He also collected blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence vide memo. Exh.P.A. Last-worn clothes of the deceased were also received by him vide memo. Exh.P.D. On 14-5-2000 the accused/appellant was produced before him by Syed Mehdi Muzaffar and Saleem P. Ws. On the same day the accused while in police custody got recovered Danda blood-stained P.7 and Churri P.8 vide memo., Exh.P.E. Ultimately the challan against the appellant/accused was prepared and submitted.
4. Prosecution in order to prove its case has produced as many as 12 witnesses including Investigating Officer, Doctor, relevant and formal witnesses. After tendering in evidence reports Exh.P.N., Exh.P.PP., Exh.P.Q., Exh.P.R., Exh.P.S., Exh.P.T., Exh.P.X.P.U. And Exh.P.V., learned A.D.A. Closed the prosecution evidence. Thereafter statement of the accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C.
In which he pleaded his innocence. Learned trial Court after taking into consideration every aspect of the case and hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submits that appellant was not named in the F.I.R., that there is evidence of extra-judicial confession consisting of Syed Mehdi Muzaffar and Muhammad Saleem, P.W.7 and P.W.10 respectively, that both these witnesses were residents of Lahore while the extra-judicial confession was allegedly made by the appellant at Pindi Bhattian. Learned counsel submits that visit of Mehdi Muzaffar to Pindi Bhattian was not proved on the record, that the recoveries have been planted on the appellant, that there is no eye- witness in this case, that neither Mehdi Muzaffar was Lamberdar, Councilor or a person of authority, so there was no question of making any extra-judicial confession before him.
6. Learned counsel, for the appellant further submits that the appellant has made a detailed statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. In reply to question that why this case against you. He has also produced 5 D.Ws. In plea of his version. If both the versions are put in a juxtaposition the version of the appellant seems to be more plausible and convincing one.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand submits that the version of the appellant is not believable. The version of the appellant and his wife who had appeared as D.W.4 are discrepant, that no reliance can be placed on the version of the appellant, that statement of Mehdi Muzaffar and Muhammad Saleem who are witnesses of extra-judicial confession and that of recovery rings true. Learned counsel further submits that if both the versions are put in juxtaposition then version of the prosecution seems to be more plausible and convincing one.
8. Learned State counsel on the other hand submits that he relies on the statement of D.W.4 Mst.
Zeenat Begum, who is wife of the appellant. He submits that the appellant had committed the murder of the deceased under grave and sudden provocation. He has also relied upon 1997 M LD 3045 titled as Sardar Muhammad v. The State.
9. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, the F.I.R. Was lodged by Naveed Ahmad who was partner and brother-in-law ( ) of Malik Muhammad Sharif, deceased.
Nobody was named in the F.I.R., the two star witnesses according to the prosecution are Mehdi Muzaffar and Muhammad Saleem examined as P.W.7 and P.W.10 respectively. According to their statement the appellant appeared before them in a small hotel at a road side at Pindi Bhattian having no board and stated that he had committed the murder of the deceased because at the time of the occurrence had with him Rs,20,000 and due to greed he did this occurrence. Both these witnesses are residents of Lahore while the appellant is resident of Pindi Bhattian. Both these eyewitnesses had no relationship or connection whatsoever with the appellant then why he would make extra-judicial confession before them. Mehdi Muzaffar has failed to prove his presence at Pindi Bhattian. Prosecution has also produced one of the witness of last seen who had seen the appellant entering into under construction house where the occurrence had taken place and he saw the accused running away from the spot. At this stage learned counsel for the complainant submits that he had seen the appellant while he was fleeing from the place of occurrence. If this was the position then that P.W. Should have informed immediately to the police or the near relative of the deceased. It is an un-: witnessed occurrence as there is no eyewitness in this case.
10. The appellant on the other hand in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Which is detailed one has taken the plea of grave and sudden provocation. He has also produced 5 D.Ws. To prove his version including his wife on which the deceased tried to commit Zina-bil-Jabr. If both the versions one put forward by the prosecution and the other put forward by the appellant are put in a juxtaposition the version of the appellant seems to be more plausible, convincing and near to truth. The Doctor Muhammad Raza who conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased had found 30 injuries on the body of the deceased, 19 with sharp-edged weapon while 11 with blunt weapon. The number of injuries also show that the deceased was murdered under grave and sudden provocation when he lost his senses and self-control seeing the deceased trying to commit Zina-bil-iabr with his wife. His version is also supported by Mst. Zeenat Begum who is wife of the appellant. The statements of Mehdi Muzaffar and Muhammad Saleem that they produced the appellant in Satto Qatla before the, police is also rebutted by Mr. Muhammad 'Hanif Dahar, Advocate, according to his statement he has produced the appellant before the police. Then there is statement of D.W.1 namely Ahmad Nawaz Rauf who was posted as Software Engineer in Motorway Project. According to his statement on 6-5-2000 at 11-30 a.m. a car bearing Registration No,LOJ-521 had entered Lahore Station and had exited from Pindi Bhattian Station 12-18 p.m. Again on the same day the aforesaid car entered Pindi Bhattian Station at 1-31 p.m. He had also produced the entry and exit information Exh.D.F. Which also supports the version of the appellant. Even learned counsel for the State has also conceded the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the version taken by Mst. Zeenat Begum wife of the appellant in this case and he did so rightly.
11. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court under section 302-C, P.P.C. From 10 years to 5 years R.I. With benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. As far as award of compensation is concerned that is set aside because in cases of right of self-defence and under grave and sudden provocation, no compensation or fine can be awarded.
' Reliance is placed on PLD 1982 SC 294 titled as Meraj Begum v. Ijaz Anwar. With these observations this appeal stands disposed of.
Sentence reduced.