MUHAMMAD SAEED Versus STATE

SH. IJAZ NISAR, J --- This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment, dated 1-12-1990, passed by the Lahore High Court, in Criminal Appeal No.21-J/1988.

2. The facts, in brief, are that Muhammad Saeed, appellant herein, was tried alongwith Muhammad Ismail for ' the murder of Muhammad Mumtaz deceased, with a Churri, committed on 9-6-1986 at about 6-00 p.m. on the allegation that about 3/4 months prior to the occurrence Muhammad Saeed alias Kari appellant forced Muhammad Mumtaz deceased for carnal intercourse, who did not agree to it and informed his father Noor Muhammad complainant, whereupon the latter and Muhammad Mumtaz deceased had given shoes beating to the appellant.

3. On the day of occurrence on the Lalkara. of the appellant, Muhammad Ismail co-accused (since acquitted) caught hold of the deceased, while the appellant inflicted Churri blows on him resulting in his death on the following day in the hospital. The occurrence was witnessed by Noor Muhammad P.W. 10 and Sultan P. W. 11.

During investigation, blood-stained Churri Exh.P was recovered at the instance of the appellant.

At the trial, he denied the prosecution allegation and pleaded innocence, but did not lead any evidence in his defence.

4. The learned trial Court by judgment dated 23-4-1988 convicted the appellant under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced him to death plus a fine of Rs. 10,000. However, his co-accused Muhammad Ismail was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. On appeal, the High Court by judgment dated 1-12-1990 maintained conviction and sentence of tte appellant and dismissed his appeal.

5. Leave was granted to consider as to whether the Courts below had correctly followed the principles governing appraisal of evidence in criminal cases as laid down by this Court.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for appellant at length, but he has not been able to point out any defect in the ocular testimony which stands corroborated by the medical evidence, motive and the recovery of blood-stained Churri at the instance of the appellant. The ocular testimony is consistent and confidence inspiring. Learned counsel has failed to point out any reason for the false implication of the appellant.

7. For the above reasons, the appellant was rightly convicted. However, he is entitled to conversion of capital sentence into imprisonment for life in view of the general amnesty granted by the President vide order dated 7th December, 1988, commuting death sentences awarded by Courts up to 6th December, 1988. The appellant is found entitled to this concession because he was awarded death sentence on 234-1988. The question as to where an accused whose sentence of death had not been confirmed by the High Court was entitled to this concession was considered by this Court in Eid Muhammad and others v. The State (PLD 1993 SC 14) and it was held that the benefit would also accrue to the convicts awaiting confirmation of their sentence by the High Court. Consequently, we while maintaining his conviction alter his sentence of death to imprisonment for life plus the same fine as awarded by the learned trial Court, which, if recovered, shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, as compensation. He shall also be entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.

N.H.Q./M-212/S ???????? Sentence reduced