IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI
Criminal Appeal No. 560 of 2017
Appellant: Nasir
through Mr. Raja Ghulam Murtaza advocate
The State: Through
Mr. Faheem Hussain Panhwar, Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh
Date of hearing: 07.10.2022
Date of judgment: 07.10.2022
J U D G M E N T
IRSHAD ALI SHAH,
J-
It is alleged
that the appellant caused stick blow to Ghulam Shabbir on his head, he died of
such injury, for that the appellant was booked and reported upon. After due
trial, he was convicted under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life with benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C by Additional
Sessions Judge-II, Karachi Central, vide judgment dated 02.10.2017, which is
impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant appeal.
2. At the very outset, it is stated by
learned counsel for the appellant that he would not press disposal of instant
appeal on merits, provided the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to
one which he has already undergone by modifying the penal section from Section 302(b) PPC to Section
302(c) PPC.
3. None has come forward to advance
arguments on behalf of the complainant. However learned DPG for the State was
fair enough to concede with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
appellant.
4. Heard arguments and perused the record.
5. The FIR of the incident has been lodged
with delay of about 01 day. Complainant Irshad Ali is not an eye witness of the
incident. P.W Noor Muhammad by supporting the case of prosecution on factual
premises was fair enough to say that he had not seen the appellant hitting the head
of the deceased with stick. Therefore, their evidence could hardly lends support
to the case of prosecution. It was stated by P.W Liaquat Ali Shaikh that on the
date of incident, the appellant and the deceased with others were working at
his house, there arose quarrel between them, thereafter, the deceased threw a
bucket to the appellant, in return the appellant caused stick blow to the deceased
on his head, the deceased after sustaining such blow, fell down and then was
taken to the Hospital, there he died; the incident then was reported to the police
by the complainant. His evidence takes support from the evidence of P.W Liaqat
Rajput. Both of them have stood by their version on all material points despite
lengthy cross-examination, they were having no ill-will with the appellant to
have involved him in this case falsely. After arrest of the appellant, the
stick which he allegedly used in commission of the incident was secured by the
police. On chemical examination, it was found stained with human blood. The
evidence of P.Ws Shaikh Liaqat and Liaqat Rajput takes support from ancillary
evidence. In these circumstances, learned trial Court was right to conclude that
the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond
shadow of doubt.
6. However, the appellant is to be dealt
with leniently so far quantum of sentence is concerned, for the reason that the
appellant and the deceased being labourers were doing labour at the time of
incident and incident took place with sudden flare up, therefore, imprisonment for
life awarded to the appellant u/s 302(b) PPC is converted to u/s 302(c) PPC and
it is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 14 (Fourteen) years with
compensation of Rs.100,000/- payable to the legal heirs of the deceased and in
default whereof, the appellant would undergo simple imprisonment for 06 months,
with benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C.
7. In the case of Fayyaz Ahmed and others vs. Muhammad Khan and others (2020 SCMR 281), it has been held
by the Honourable Apex Court that;
5.
As
regards Rozi Khan appellant his Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 2014 is partly
allowed, his conviction for an offence under section 302(b) PPC is converted
into one under section 302(c) PPC and he too is sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for fourteen years and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the heirs of
Safdar Ali deceased by way of compensation under section 544-A Cr.P.C or in
default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six months
..
8. Subject to modification in sentence, the instant
appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly.
JUDGE