2008 PLP 378 (SCMR)

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.-This petition has been filed for leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 31-72002 whereby learned High Court declined to affirm the death sentence awarded to Abdur Rashid by the trial Court however, on account of consideration of mitigating circumstances he was sentenced to imprisonment for life with direction to pay compensation of Rs.50,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default in the payment of compensation he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. has also been given to the accused.

2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that vide Exh.P.A./1 F.I.R. No.52 of 1996 was registered at P.S. Saddar Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar. Abdur Rasheed along with Ghulam Abbas and Amir Abdullah faced trial for the commission of murder of Muhammad Abdullah. Learned trial Court found Abdur Rashid guilty of the offence vide judgment, dated 2-11-1999 and awarded him death sentence. So far remaining accused are concerned they were acquitted of the charge. Learned High Court declined to affirm the sentence of death and on acceptance the appeal filed by the accused modified the sentence as already mentioned hereinabove.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt against the respondent/convict therefore, he was liable to normal penalty of death under section 302(b), P.P.C. and without any justification his sentence has been reduced to imprisonment for life by the High Court. Convict has also submitted petition from jail challenging his conviction on the ground that there is no evidence on record to conclude the guilt of commission of offence. He alleged that he has been falsely involved in the commission of offence.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant, learned Assistant Advocate-General and have also gone through the contents of the jail petition and with their assistance have gone the evidence available on record as well as the impugned judgment.

5. It is to be noted that learned High Court after having taken into consideration that the prosecution witnesses kept on jumping from one motive to another during the trial, therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court reported in Feroze Khan v. The State 2002 SCMR 99 convict has made out a case for lesser punishment. There is no reason to disagree with the said finding because the prosecution after having alleged the motive, has failed to establish the same in order to show the involvement of the accused. However, there is other sufficient material available on record against the accused/respondent, therefore, it has rightly been concluded and convict has been found entitled for the lesser punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case. As such we find that so far as conviction of respondent is concerned it is in accordance with law and the arguments put forwarded by the convict in his jail petition are without any substance.

6. Thus, for the foregoing reasons we see no force in both the petitions as such the same are dismissed and leave declined. M.H./A-94/SC Petition dismissed.