Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302

(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), ---S. 302-Murder-Sentence Accused a fugitive from justice-Possibility of accused's being armed with gun to safeguard against arrest and firing at deceased after verbal altercation over recent sale of jointly owned trees-Exacting extreme punishment of death, in circumstances, held, not safe ---Death sentence altered to that of transportation for life. Date of hearing: 1st December 1969.   JUDGMENT Rustam is alleged to have murdered Noor Muhammad. He was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, and was sentenced to death. The convicted person appealed and his case for confirmation of death sentence was referred to this Court under section 374, Cr. P. Code. The learned Judges of this Court comprising the Division Bench agreed with regard to the guilt of the appellant, but differed on the question of sentence with the result that the learned Chief Justice referred the case to me. 2. The murder took place in the afternoon of November 28, 1967. Noor Muhammad deceased was looking after his crop in Killa No. 12 of square No. 18, in Chak No. 630-GB, Lyallpur District, when Rustam appeared on the scene, challenged Noor Muhammad for opposing the marriage of his sister with the appellant and fired with a '12 bore shot gun with the result that the unfortunate man received a fatal injury, of which he died at the spot. The appellant was secured by the witnesses after he was given injuries by Muhammad Tufail with a stick. 3. The report was promptly lodged by Alam, father of the deceased, who had also sustained a head injury with the butt end of the gun at the hands of the appellant in his attempt to save his son. 4. The evidence consists of three eye-witnesses, namely, Alam, who was present at the nearby dhari, Sakhi Muhammad and Tufail. The general criticism of the evidence of Sakhi Muhammad by counsel in this Court was that he was not at the scene of the occurrence. I find that Sakhi Muhammad resided at a distance of a mile from the spot. The reason given by the witness for his presence at the spot at the time of the occurrence is not convincing. He is an owner of three squares of land and tells us that 60 or 70 families are…