2006SCMR313 (PLP)

ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.

This petition is directed against the judgment dated 12-1-2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers, Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Criminal Appeal No.1088 of 2002 filed by petitioner, Israr Ahmed, was dismissed with some modification, while maintaining the conviction under section 302(c), P.P.C. but sentence was reduced from 25 years to 14 years' R.I. with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. However, the line of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) was converted into compensation, which was directed to pay the same to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default thereof to suffer six months' S.I. Criminal Revision No.761 of 2002 filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence was also dismissed.

2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case, as disclosed in the F.I.R., are that on 11-5-1999 at about 7-30 a.m. the complainant along with his son Sohail Asif was passing from near the house of acquitted accused Khadim Hussain Mujahid. On hearing voice of firing, they along with other people entered in the house of Khadim Hussain Mujahid. Khadim Hussain Mujahid fired with his pistol which hit Abdul Ghaffar injured on his left hand, while second fire fired by petitioner, Israr Ahmed, hit the left Dolla of Abdul Ghaffar. He also fired with his rifle .222 bore on the neck of Sohail Asif, deceased, who fell down and succumbed to his injury. The motive behind the occurrence was a property dispute between the parties.

3. Petitioner Israr Ahmed and acquitted accused Khadim Hussain Mujahid were sent up by the prosecution to face trial. Khadim Hussain Mujahid was acquitted by the trial Court, whereas; petitioner Israr Ahmed was convicted and sentenced as stated above.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the petitioner so much so the vital witness namely Abdul Ghaffar, who sustained injuries during the incident was abandoned and was not examined for no reason at all. According to him, it was the primarily duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt against the petitioner, which is miserably failed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State controverted the above contentions and supported the impugned judgment.

6. At the very outset, it would be pertinent to refer to the admission made by the petitioner in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. while replying to the question No.6, which is as under:-- "Case is false as narrated by the P.Ws. and actually on the fateful day early in the morning a quarrel took place between my father and Abdul Ghaffar etc. Abdul Ghaffar is allegedly an injured P.W. in the Chowk of the village. After that said Abdul Ghaffar along with his other companions entered in my house where I was residing at the time of occurrence and outraged the modesty of my mother upon this I flared up and picked the licensed rifle of my father and fired at Abdul Ghaffar in meantime Sohail Asif had also entered in my house. Fire hit firstly Abdul Ghaffar and then the same fire after hitting Abdul Ghaffar reflected at neck of Sohail Asif deceased. I had no intention to murder of Sohail Asif. He received the fire incidentally. There was no enmity between inc and Sohail Asif."

7. From the above admission of the petitioner, it is crystal clear that he has admitted to have committed the murder of Sohail Asif deceased inside his house, while causing injuries to Abdul Ghaffar, brother-in-law of the deceased and also admitted that the said fire after hitting Abdul Ghaffar hit at neck of the deceased. This was the main reason which found favour with the High Court to reduce the sentence from 25 years to 14 years' R.I. Learned counsel though argued at length, yet, could not point out any aspect of the matter that the petitioner allegedly fired in the right of his self-defence. In his defence he did not even produce his mother to substantiate his stand that injured Abdul Ghaffar had come to outrage the modesty of his mother, which prompted him, to fire at Abdul Ghaffar. When examined the defence plea in juxta?position of the case of prosecution, latter seems to be more probable and true. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The petition is also barred by 63 days, for which no plausible explanation has been offered. Consequently, the petition being devoid of force is dismissed both on merits and being barred by time. N.H.Q./I-117/SC???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.