' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,233 of 2001 filed by Abdul Hamid alias Hamidi, appellant, who was convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge,. Vehari, vide his judgment dated 24-2-2001 to death under section 302(b), P.P.C. For the murder of Haji Muhammad Aslam deceased and a compensation of Rs,20,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased as required under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default six months'
R.I.Murder Reference No,168 of 2001 for confirmation or otherwise of death sentence of the appellant shall also be. Answered through this single judgment.
2. Brief facts of the case, as disclosed by Mian Manzoor Ahmad complainant (P.W.6) are that he and his brother Haji Muhammad Aslam(deceased) owned agricultural land in squares Nos.40-41 in Chak No,259/EB, where Haji Muhammad Alsam deceased had also built a kiln in some portion of his agricultural land while the rest was being cultivated by him through his servant Hamid alias Hamidi (appellant), who had borrowed Rs,13,500 from the deceased at different intervals, wanted to quit service of Haji Muhammad Aslam deceased but the latter told the former that he (appellant) could do so only after clearing his (deceased) debt; hearing of which Hamid accused told the deceased that he (appellant) would pay his amount whenever he had the same with him, whereupon, a week before the occurrence, both of them entered into arguments. On the day of occurrence, that's, 18-6-1997 at about 5-30 a.m. In the morning Hamid alias Hamidi accused was irrigating the lands of Haji Muhammad Alsam, deceased, when they both again exchange hot words over the above said dispute; Hamid accused who was armed with Kassi at that time, gave a Kassi blow on the head of unarmed deceased, who tried to stop the same with his left hand but the blow caused injuries on his hand, face and left hand causing the blood oozing. Deceased Haji Muhammad Aslam raised alarm and also started running but was followed by the accused. The deceased had hardly covered some distance when he fell down with his face towards the earth and the accused then with right side of his Kassi gave him Kassi blows on the back side of his head, neck and on his ear. Hearing the outcries of the deceased, complainant, Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Afzal P.Ws. A they were present in their cotton crop contiguous to the field of the deceased, rushed towards the spot but the accused while raising "Lalkara" fled away, leaving the blood-stained Kassi and his own pair of shoes at the spot. The deceased yielded to the injuries then and there.
3. Investigation of the case was taken over by Malik Rustam Ali Inspector/S.H.O. P.W.7. He after registration of the formal F.I.R., went to the spot. Took the dead body of the deceased into possession. Prepared injury statement Exh.P.C. And inquest report Exh.PB, recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C., inspected the spot, prepared rough site-plan Exh.P.G., took into possession bloodstained earth from the place where the deceased fell down in an injured condition and again ran away vide memo. Exh.P.H. And from the place of murder vide memo.
Exh.P.1, also took into possession a pair of shoes P.5 belonging to the accused vide memo. Exh.P.L., then took into possession blood-stained Kassi P.6 vide memo. Exh.P.M. On 2-7-1997 he arrested Muhammad Amin and Abdul Hamid accused. ' After completion of remaining formal investigation the accused were challaned to face the trial.
4. At the trial, prosecution in order to prove its case produced 10 witnesses in all, thereafter, learned A.D.A tendered in evidence report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.N., that of Serologist Exh.P.Q. And closed the prosecution case, then, the statements of the accused were recorded under section '342, Cr.P.C. After conclusion of the trial, Muhammad Amin co-accused was acquitted while the present appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above by the learned trial Court.
5. After having read the entire prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And other relevant material available on record, learned counsel for the appellant submits that on the same evidence real brother/co-accused, namely, Muhammad Amin has been acquitted by the learned trial Court, that it was an unwitnessed occurrence, that injuries could not have been caused on the person of the deceased as has been mentioned by the eye- witnesses, that there are two injuries with blunt weapon, which have not been explained because the appellant according to the prosecution case was armed with Kassi. That blood-stained earth had been taken from two different spots, that eye-witnesses are interested and related to the deceased so they are inimical towards the appellant, that Kassi has been planted on the appellant, that police failed to get identified the shoes left by the appellant at the spot, that he has been falsely implicated in this case. That no case is made out and he is entitled to acquittal.
' Learned State counsel submits that appellant is named in the F.I.R., that ocular account is corroborated by medical evidence and no case of false implication. He supports the judgment of the learned trial Court.
' We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a great length and have also gone through the record with their able assistance. Occurrence in this case had taken place on 18-6-1997 at 5-30 a.m. While the matter was reported to the police on the same day at 7-15 a.m. Although the distance between place of occurrence and police station was 13 miles, so it was a case of promptly lodged F.I.R. In the instant case there were two accused, namely, Muhammad Amin and Abdul Hamid alias Hamidi (present appellant). As far as, Muhammad Amin coaccused/real brother of the appellant is concerned, he had been acquitted by the learned trial Court because he was not present at the spot and he was accused of conspiracy, so he was rightly acquitted by the learned trial Court. So far as, present appellant is concerned, he was working as an employee with the deceased and taken Rs,13,500 from him as an advance money, he wanted to leave the service of the deceased but the deceased used to demand his over due money and he was not giving the same. On the fateful day, on the demand of said money by the deceased, the appellant, who was giving water to the field with Kassi, gave Kassi blow on the person of the deceased, who in order to save his life ran away, he was followed by the appellant and he was given five other Kassi blows on the different part of his body by the appellant, during the resistance deceased also fell down on the ground and he also received abrasion and lacerated wound, so there is no conflict between ocular account and medical evidence. In the instant case, the Investigating Officer also took blood- stained earth from two different places, one from where the attack was started and the other from where dead body of the deceased was lying. There is further corroboration to the effect that during the running of the deceased, his "Dhoti" also fell down on the ground along with his "Chappal", which were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. Kassi was left by the appellant at the spot and the same fact is mentioned in the F.I.R. Blood-stained "Dhoti", bloodstained earth taken from two different spots and the blood-stained Kassi were sent to Chemical Examiner and in this regard reports of Chemical Examiner and that of the Serologist are positive in nature. Although the complainant is real brother of the deceased and other witness, namely, Akram is also related to him but they are the natural witnesses, having no animus against the appellant, why the real brother would leave the actual culprits and falsely involve the appellant. Appellant is the single accused in this case, so there is no question whatsoever of substitution because the substitution is a rare phenomenon. We have no hesitation in our mind to state that prosecution has proved its case against the appellant through ocular account corroborated by medical evidence and the positive reports of Chemical Examiner and that of Serologist regarding blood-stained Kassi. There is no mitigating circumstance in favour of the appellant because he did not cause only one injury but six E injuries simultaneously. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant by the learned trial Court is maintained in toto. His death sentence is confirmed and murder reference is replied in affirmative.