'MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.-Abdur Rehman son of Amir Khan was tried under section 302, P. P. C., by the Sessions Judge, Campbellpur, for causing murder of Amir Khan son of Baz Khan. The trial Judge vide his judgment dated 7th June 1975 convicted him-under section 302, P. P. C. And sentenced him to imprisonment for life anal a fine of rupees five thousand, or in default to suffer rigorous iinprisonment for three years. The learned trial Court also directed that out of the fine if realized a sum of Rs, 3,000 be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation.
2. The convict assailed the order of his conviction by means of this appeal, whereas the complainant Noor Khan filed Crl. Revision No, 964 of 1975, seeking enhancement of sentence imposed upon the appellant. This judgment shall dispose of these matters together.
3. The prosecution case as disclosed by Noor Khan (P. W. 10) in his statement Exh. P. F. Recorded by Muhammad Anwar, Head Constable (P. W. 8) at Police Station, Taman, is as follows :- ' On 31st May 1973 at about sun rise time, in village Sangwala, Amir Khan deceased went to lodge his goat in the village pen, maintained by Ghulam Mohammad. The accused-appellant came there and threatened the deceased to teach him a lesson for not leaving the land and whipping out knife, gave blow in the abdomen of the deceased. The occurrence was witnessed by Amir Khan son of Lal Khan (not examined), Muhammad Hassan (P. W. 11) and the complainant. The witnesses raised alarm and tried to capture the accused, but he threatened them and carrying knife ran towards his house. Amir Khan injured was laid on a cot, but after about half an hour, he succumbed to the injuries.
4. The motive for the offence was that five years prior CO the incident the accused mortgaged his land with the deceased and his father for Rs, 16,500, but thereafter filed a suit alleging that the mutation of mortgage was deceitfully got attested by the deceased and his father. Another cause for the offence was that the deceased had appeared as witness against the accused in case tried under the Martial law, in which the accused was convicted and sentenced to whipping.
5: Hazrab Khan, S. I. (P. W. 12) at the relevant time, was at Talagang in connection with the investigation of a murder case, where he received the copy of the F. I. R. He reached the spot, examined the dead body, prepared the injury statement Exh. P H, inquest report Exh. P H I and sent the dead body for postmortem examination under the escort of F. C. Zarin Khan (P. W. 2). He collected blood-stained earth vide memo Exh. P G.
6. Dg. Muhammad Usman Qureshi performed post-mortem on the dead body of Amir Khan and noticed one stab wound on the left side of abdomen withinverted margin measuring 2i"xi", cutting the skin muscles of omentum of two places and penetrating into the large intestines through and through on the left side. He also found clotted blood in lower part of the stomach. The direction of the wound was from below upward and towards the inner side of the abdomen. He also found a cut mark on the upper and front part of the middle and ring fingers of the right hand, ,1" long on each finger, linear in type. The doctor declared that death had occurred due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injury No, 1; which was caused by a sharp-edged pointed weapon and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He opined that the probable time elapsed between the injury and death was about half an hour and that between death and post- mortem about 7/8 hours.
7. The accused appellant was arrested on 23rd June, 1973, while in police custody he led to the recovery of blood-stained knife P. 1 from a bush in the Behak land, which was taken into possession vide memo Exh. P H/2.
8. The knife was reported by the Serologist to be stained with human blood.
9. The accused pleaded not guilty and explained his involvement in the case on account of enmity with the P. Ws. He stated that the P. Ws: had deposed against him because of their relationship with the deceased and also at the instance of the police.
10. The prosecution case rests, on ocular evidence, furnished by Noor Khan (P. W. 10) and Mohammad Hassan (P. W. 11) besides,' medical evidence and the evidence of motive and recovery.
11. The trial Court disbelieved the evidence of recovery, but relying on the ocular evidence, as corroborated by the medical evidence convicted the appellant.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the ocular evidence in this case was interested because (P. W. 10) Noor Khan, the complainant, was the sister's son of the deceased and Mohammad Hassan P. W. Was his nephew. He also contended that their presence at the scene of occurrence was doubtful.
13. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the ocular version furnished by Mohammad Hassan P. W. Was duly corroborated by medical evidence and his presence at the spot could not be doubted, in the circumstances of this case.
14. The occurrence in this case took place in the month of May at about sun rise time and the presence of Mohammad Hassan P. W. At the scene of incident cannot be doubted. His statement inspires confidence, particularly when it is found consistent and substantially true on material points. Mere relationship of the P. Ws. With the deceased would not justify discarding their evidence, if otherwise, it was true. The incident took place in the broad day light and in the heart of the village.
Th possibility of substitution in single accused case is a rare phenomenon. He was named in the F. I.
R. And specific rote attributed to him was not exaggerated at the trial.
15. The evidence of motive, furnished by Mehar Khan (P. W. 9) established that the accused had reason to launch assault on the deceased. The trend of cross-examination, of the P. Ws. Rather.
Shows that th A motive was impliedly admitted by the defence. The ocular evidence finds' sufficient corroboration from medical evidence and the evidence of motive. The discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are, minor and not material to impair the veracity of the ocular version.
16. After careful consideration of the evidence on the record and appreciating the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties at the Bar, we are satisfied that the prosecution has established its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We, therefore, maintain his conviction under section 302, P. P. C. And the sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court.
17. In the result, we find no substance in the appeal and the connected revision petition and accordingly dismiss them.