' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,535 of 2001 filed by Hasil Khan, who, vide judgment, dated 13-7-2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, D.G. Khan, stands convicted and sentenced for offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. To death plus payment of Rupees two lacs to the legal heirs of the deceased, in default to undergo further S.I. For six months. Murder Reference No,498 of 2001, seeking confirmation or otherwise of death sentence, shall also be replied through this single judgment.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case, as narrated by Khuda Bakhshcomplainant, are that about 1-1/2 years prior to the occurrence, the complainant sent his son Khalid Hussain to cut sugarcane to the land of Muhammad Yunus at Chah Darziwala. After some time, the complainant along with Karin'
Bakhsh and Naseer Ahmad, P. Ws. Were on their way to the aforesaid land to take the sugarcane and reached Jalpai Minor at Darziwala at about 8/9-00 a.m. Near the Thokar, they saw Khalid Hussain standing there and Hasil Khan abusing Allah Bakhsh, uncle of Khalid Hussain. Khalid Hussain forbade Hasil Khan from abusing his uncle, whereupon Hasil Khan said that he would teach a lesson to Khalid Hussain for this insult and gave a hatchet blow, hitting Khalid Hussain on his head, followed by two other blows, hitting Khalid Hussain on the back of his head and near the right ear. Khalid Hussain tried to come near the P.Ws. But was given two blows by Hasil Khan, hitting on his backside. Khalid Hussain fell down in the water. Hasil Khan made good his escape along with the hatchet.
3. The motive was that Hasil Khan used to abuse Allah Bakhsh and Khalid Hussain forbade him from doing so, upon the accused infuriated and committed the Qatl-i-Amd of the deceased.
4. The injured was taken to the hospital and was referred and taken to Nishtar Hospital, Multan. The complainant was on his way to police station at Adda Sarwarwali, when he came across Niaz Hussain, S.-I./P.W.10, who recorded his statement, on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Was registered.
The Investigating Officer went to the hospital, where he was informed that the injured had been referred to Nishtar Hospital, Multan. Then he went to the place of occurrence and collected blood- stained earth and sealed the same into a parcel vide memo. Exh.P.K. He prepared rough site plan Exh.P.N. He also recorded the statements of the P.Ws. In this respect. On 3-4-2000,. On receipt of information that the Khalid Hussain had died in Nishtar Hospital, Multan, he added offence under section 302, P.P.C. And went to the said hospital, received the dead body, prepared injury statement Exh. P. G. And inquest report Exh. P. F. Got the post-mortem examination of the deceased and after post-mortem examination; he took into possession the last-worn clothes of the deceased. Through memo. Exh.P.M. On 18-4-2000, the appellant was arrested and had led to the recovery of hatchet P.1 which was taken into, possession vide memo. Exh.P.L. Scaled site plan of the place of recovery 'was got prepared. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was challaned to face trial.
5. The prosecution produced ten witnesses to support its case at the trial and after tendering the positive report of the Serologist Exh. P.O. In evidence closed its side. Thereafter, the appellant, in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Pleaded his innocence and false implication, stating that two months earlier to the occurrence, he had seen the deceased in objectionable position with his granddaughter and complained about that to the complainant, who, on account of suspicion, had falsely implicated him in this case.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his appeal, submits that the appellant is not named in the F.I.R. That it was an unseen occurrence; that eye-witnesses have falsely fabricated the prosecution version; that the F.I.R. Was recorded after due deliberations and consultations; that the same was not recorded at police station; that motive is not believable; that at the time of making of statement on 13-7-2001, the appellant had given his age as 70/71 years and this is the mitigating circumstance in favor of the appellant.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that it is a broad-daylight occurrence; that it is a case of single accused; that the parties were known to each other, so there was no question of substitution. With these submissions, the learned counsel supports the impugned judgment.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through he entire record of the case with their assistance.
9. The deceased in this case was Khalid Hussain, who was aged about 13/14 years. The motive in this case was that the deceased had asked the appellant not to abuse his uncle, which the appellant termed as his disgrace and thereafter he gave five hatchet blows simultaneously on the person of the deceased. Due to injury No,1 brain matter was coming out from the brain. Most of the injuries were on the head or around the head. He repeated the injuries. Though the complainant is father of the deceased yet he had no previous animous against the appellant. It was a case of single accused and promptly lodged F.I.R. No question of substitution or false implication arises. It is not believable that the complainant would leave the real culprit and falsely involve the appellant in this case. Ocular account is fully corroborated by medical evidence. Then there is recovery of hatchet on the pointation of the appellant, which was found to be stained with human blood. So we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt through independent eye-witnesses account, corroborated by medical evidence, positive report of the Serologist regarding human blood on the hatchet and the motive. The only mitigating circumstance which has been argued before us by the learned counsel for the appellant is that on the day of making of statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant had given his age as 70/71 years. There is no ground to award lesser sentence, coupled with the fact that the appellant became fugitive from law for about 21 days after the registration of the case. At the time of his arrest, his age has been mentioned as 55/56 years. So there is also no mitigating circumstance in favor of the appellant.
10. The result is that this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Death sentence is confirmed. The murder reference is answered in the affirmative.