' KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.--The petitioner Anwarul Hassan and one Nazir Ahmad residents of Sutlaj Cotton Mills Colony, Okara, were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, under sections 302/34, P. P. C. For the murder of Aziz-ud-din and having been found guilty, were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs, 2,000 each or in default of fine to undergo further six months' rigorous imprisonment. They were also directed to pay compensation to the extent of Rs, 2,000 each to the heirs of the deceased or in default to undergo further six months' rigorous imprisonment.
2. The petitioner filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No, 436/77 whereas Nazir Ahmad co- accused filed a separate appeal being Criminal Appeal No, 410/77. Both these appeals were dismissed by the High Court by a common judgment on 21st May, 1978.
3. Anwarul Hassan has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
4. Learned counsel has given us to understand that co-accused Nazir Ahmad according to his information has not filed any petition.
5. The facts of the prosecution case are that on 3rd January, 1975 an F. I. R. Was lodged by Muhammad Ali, Lambardar (P. W. 12) at 8 p. m. At Police Station Shahbore, district Sahiwal, in which he reported that a dead body of a man was lying in a dry watercourse in his land in Chak No, 25/4- L who according to his view based on the condition of the blood lying on the spot seemed to have been murdered last night. The F. I. R. Was taken down by Turaiz Ahmad, S. I. (P. W. 16). During the investigation circumstential (and not ocular) evidence became available against the two accused who were put on trial and convicted as above-mentioned.
6. The prosecution evidence consists of (a) medical evidence, (b) the evidence of motive, and (c) the circumstantial evidence in the form of (i) the deceased having been last seen in the company of the two accused by Alim-ud-din (P. W. 2) (father of the deceased), Muhammad Aslam (P. W. 10) and Muhammad Jamil (P. W. 14) (ii) recovery of a registration card of Nazir Ahmad co-accused underneath the dead body, (iii) the recovery of the blood-stained clothes of the petitioner on 6th January 1975 A from an attache-case inside his residential quarter at his instance, (iv) recovery of a blood-stained chhura Exh. P. 13 on 7th January, 1973 from the house of the petitioner, (v) and recovery of a wrist watch Exh. P./14 at his instance which allegedly belonged to the deceased, (vi) evidence regarding absence of the petitioner on 21st January 1975 from his duty in Mill where he was employed, and (vii) injuries on the person of both the accused.
7. Before dealing with the above evidence it may be mentioned that the first point argued by the learned counsel was that it was not established on the record that the deceased in this case was Aziz-ud-din or that it was his dead body which was recovered from the dry water course. The contention has no merit. Alim-ud-din (P. W. 2) father of the deceased claimed to have identified the deceased from looking at his last worn clothes and shoes. Coupled with this is the evidence of Muhammad Ali (P. W. 12) (the first informant) who had seen the dead body and made a report at the police station. He was shown an identity card of Aziz-ud-din and he deposed that it was of the same person whose dead body had been seen by him in the dry watercourse. The point raised by the learned counsel in the circumstances fails and is repelled hereby.
8. Taking up the medical evidence the deceased had the following injuries on his person :-
(1) Incised wound 5" x 4" on the front and sides of the neck cutting underneath the muscles of the neck, large blood vessels of the neck on the both sides, trachea and oesophagus and cervical vertebra (3rd) on the front.
(2) Incised wound 21/2" x 1/2 on the right side of nose cutting underneath of the nasal bone.
(3) Incised wound 11/4"" x 1/2" bone deep on the left side of the face in front of the left cutting underneath the left jaw bone.
(4) Incised wound 1/2" x 1/8" skin deep on the root of the nose.
(5) Incised wound 21/2" x 1" on the back of the right chest lower part.
(6) Incised wound 1/4" x 1/8" on the back of the upper part of left thigh.
(7) Two incised wounds 1/2" x 1/8" on the palm of the left hand on the outer side.
(8) Two incised wounds.1/2" x 1/8 skin deep one on each finger on the right and middle and right ring finger.
' In the opinion of the doctor the death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage due to the cutting off the large blood vessels of neck.
' All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and had been caused with a sharpe-dged weapon.
Injury No, 1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time that elapsed between the injuries and death was immediate and between death and post-mortem 48 hours.
9. The medical evidence corroborates the prosecution case that the deceased was done to death by a sharp-edged weapon and coupled with recovery of a human blood-stained chhura Exh. P/13 from the house of the petitioner at his own instance lends a support to his involvement in the case.
The time of death also fits in with the time mentioned in F. I. R. And from that point of view, would also corroborate the evidence of the person by whom the deceased was last seen during the relevant period with the petitioner.
10. As regards the motive for the crime Alim-ud-din (P. W. 2) stated that the deceased Aziz-ud-din had illicit relations with the sister of the petitioner Anwarul Hassan and it was for this reason that he committed this murder. He was not cross-examined as to the source of his knowledge but it was argued before us that as the witness had admitted that he learnt of the illicit activities of the deceased after his death therefore he should not be believed on this point. The argument has no force because the aforesaid aspect of the case would rather show that he was a straight forward person and his testimony cannot be discredited on this ground inasmuch as very often parents do not know about all the activities of their children much less their immoral activities.
11. The next incriminating material against the petitioner is of the deceased having been last seen in his company by Muhammad Jamil (P. W. 14) who deposed that he had a meat shop at the bridge of Rajbah 4-L on Multan-Lahore road and is at a distance of one mile from Okara towards Sahiwal.
He stated that at about 4.00 p. m. On 2nd January, 1975 he saw the deceased sitting on the front frame of the cycle driven by accused Nazir Ahmad. He bad seen the aforesaid three persons going towards Chak No, 25/4-L and the dead body was later on found in the area of said Chak.
Muhammad Jamil is an independent witness he is neither related to the deceased nor he has any enmity with the petitioner. He was subjected to cross-examination but nothing was found to damage his testimony. The High Court in the circumstances was justfied in holding that the deceased was last seen in the company of the petitioner.
12. The petitioner was arrested on 6th January, 1975 and at his instance were recovered blood- stained clothes from his attache-case. Similarly the blood-stained chhura Exh. P/13 was also recovered on 7th January, 1975 from his house. Both these articles were stained with human blood.
Learned counsel tried to argue that the recovery of the clothes was made on 6th January, 1975 and of chhura on 7th January, 1975. The fact that both the recoveries were not made on the same day according to the learned counsel shows that they must have been fabricated. The contention has no merit. Muhammad Jamil (P. W. 14), Muhammad Shafi (P. W. 15) and Turaiz Ahmad, S. I. (P. W. 16) are the witnesses of these recoveries. There is nothing to discredit the statements of these witnesses. If the Sub-Inspector had to plant or fabricate these recoveries there was nothing to stop him from doing so by showing them to be of the same date. The very fact that this is not so shows that he showed them to be of the dates on which they took place leaving it for the Courts to examine their impact. It was argued that no witness from the locality or near about the locality of the house of the petitioner was joined in this investigation for the aforesaid recoveries, and instead Muhammad Jamil (P. W. 14) and Muhammad Shafi (P. W. 15) of a distant place were brought to attest the recoveries. We find, on the facts and in the special circumstances of this case nothing odd in this respect because if Muhammad Jamil (P. W. 14) had last seen the deceased in the company of the petitioner and if Muhammad Shafi was a person who had noticed the dead body with Muhammnd Ali (P. W. 12) in a dry watercourse, then obviously Muhammad Jamil could be joined in the investigation especially when recovery was to be made from the man whom he had last seen. Similarly Muhammad Shafi (P. W. 15) had been guarding the dead body of the deceased when Muhammad Ali (P. W. 12) went to make a report about it. He also in this way being a witness of recovery of the dead body was not an utterly unconcerned person and stranger when he attested the recovery of clothes and the chhura. In the context the testimony of all these witnesses cannot be rejected on the ground advanced when otherwise they have no motive to falsely involve the petitioner. It was then, argued that even though the recoveries were made as aforesaid but the recovered articles were sent to the expert on 13th January, 1975 and were further remitted to the Chemical Examiner on 16th January, 1975. He argued that the delay in the despatch of these articles was not explained on the record and as such they should not be taken into consideration. It may be stated that the learned counsel could not point out whether any such question was put to the S. I. Concerned, and in the absence of any evidence doubting the identity of the articles recovered from the spot and those which were a sent to the expert etc. The point is of no substance because it is well settled that delay simpliciter is not always destructive of the evidentiary value of the incriminating material, of this type. These recoveries thus have a great evidentiary value against the petitioner. The petitioner was absent from his duty in the Okara Mill on 2nd January, 1975 which is a circumstance to show that he was not at such a place wherefrom his presence at the spot where he was last seen by Muhammad Jamil (P.W. 14) could not have been possible because he was free to be at any place he chose to be. All this circumstanial evidence was found sufficient by the two Courts below to find the petitioner guilty. Learned counsel did not refer us to any particular portion in the statement of any witness to advance his case regarding false involvement of his client and he rather submitted that he would base his submissions solely on the two judgments of the Courts below without feeling the necessity to refer to the relevant record in that respect. Picking up the passages from here and there from those two judgments he then submitted that the circumstantial evidence in the context of this case was not sufficient to pass a verdict of conviction against the petitioner. For this purpose he also referred to Ch. Abdul Latif v.
Atta Muhammad and others (1) and Muhammad Sadiq v. The State (2) to show as to what type of circumstantial evidence in the absence of ocular evidence can be held as sufficient for the conviction of an accused. The principle laid down in the precedents cited in our opinion fully cover the present material on the record which sufficiently fullfils the requirements stated therein.
13. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.
(1) PLD 1977 SC 511 (2) P D 1977 SC 582