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