Kh. Muhammad Sharif, J.--This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No, 331 of 2000 filed by Muhammad Sarwar, who was convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khanewal, vide his judgment dated 26.6.2000 as under:-- Death with compensation of Rs, 50,000/- or in default six months S.I.
Murder Reference No, 514 of 2000 for confirmation or otherwise of death sentence of appellant shall also be replied through this single judgment.
2. The brief facts of the case, as narrated in FIR Ex. PA recorded on the statement of Faqir Muhammad complainant on 26.5.1997 at 4:00 p.m., are that he was a cultivator. One year ago Muhammad Sarwar accused used to live in our house. In the morning of that day, his mother told him that the accused was not a man of good character, so forbid him from coming to their house.
Simultaneously she abused the accused and asked him to go away from her house. The accused felt aggrieved of that. It is also stated in the FIR that on the same day at 3:00 p.m. , the complainant alongwith Sultan his brother, Muhammad Siddiq son of Faqir Muhammad PW was sleeping in the courtyard of their house underneath a Sheeshum tree while his mother Mst. Hashmat Bibi was sleeping in her room. Meanwhile, Muhammad Sarwar accused came to his house to whom he asked not to visit their house in future and that he should take his luggage lying in the room and go away. The accused went into the room. Soon thereafter his mother Mst. Hashmat Bibi raised alarm and rushed out of the room. Within the view of the witnesses the accused gave razor blow on the neck of his mother in order to murder her. While he was giving second blow to his mother, she in order to save herself raised her right hand. The razor hit her hand and fingers. On receiving injuries she fell down. The accused picked up a Sota and gave two blows, which landed on the middle and left side of her head. The PWs while witnessing the occurrence, rushed towards the accused to apprehended him, on which he raised lalkara that whosoever would come near, he would be done to death and decamped from the spot alongwith weapons of offence. The PWs attended to Mst.
Hashmat Bibi who had become unconscious due to bleeding. The complainant took her along and reported the matter at the Police Station.
3. After registration of formal FIR investigation of the case was initially taken over by Ahmad Yar, ASI/PW-1, who prepared injury statement Ex. PB of Mst. Hashmat Bibi, who was in injured condition at that time, at Police Station and sent her to Hospital for medical examination, then he proceeded to the place of occurrence and collected blood-stained earth vide memo Ex.PD. Thereafter the investigation was conducted by Naeem ul Hassan SHO/PW-10, who after death of Mg. Hashmat Bibi prepared injury statement Ex. PN inquest report Ex. PO. Muhammad Sarwar accused was arrested on 28.5.1997. The Investigating Officer took into possession blood-stained Danda P-1 vide memo Ex.
PG, which the accused was holding in his right hand at the time of arrest; and blood-stained Razor P-2 vide memo Ex. PH, which was kept in the right pocket by the accused. After completion of investigation, the accused was sent up to face trial.
4. At the trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case produced 10 witnesses in all. After producing in evidence reports of Chemical Examiner Ex. PP and that of Serologist Ex. PR, the prosecution closed its case. In his statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C. the appellant pleaded false implication. After conclusion of the trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
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, the learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submits that the conduct of the eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence is most unnatural; that two of the eye-witnesses, one is the real son of the deceased while the other is neighbourer but they did not try to apprehend the appellant; that the appellant was four and half feet height and the PWs were more stronger than the accused; that it was an unwitnessed occurrence; that the FIR was lodged after due deliberations and consultations against the appellant, falsely; that as far as the recovery is concerned that is unbelievable because it was affected after three days of the occurrence; that while the appellant was apprehended, according to the prosecution case, he was holding Danda in his hand and Razor in his pocket, which is not possible; that the witnesses have made dishonest improvements in the first information report; that it was stated before the police by the witnesses that they were sleeping in the house, but before the trial Court they stated that they were not sleeping; that in the FIR it was stated by the PWs that the appellant was residing in their house for the last one year but before the trial Court it was stated that for the last one month; that the conduct of the eye-witnesses was not natural as they did not take their mother to the Hospital but to the Police Station; and that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant, thus, he is entitled to acquittal.
6. The learned counsel for the State submits that it is a broad day light occurrence; that the eye- witnesses are the natural witnesses; that the appellant had taken plea before the trial Court that he was in Chichawatni at the time of occurrence but not a single DW was produced to prove the same; and that this plea was not taken before the police during investigation. He supports the judgment of the trial Court.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The occurrence had taken place on 26.5.1997 at 3:00 p.m. in the house of the complainant and the matter was reported to the police at 4:00 p.m. at the Police Station by the complainant Faqir Muhammad son of deceased. The distance between the Police Station and the place of occurrence is nine miles meaning thereby that it is a promptly lodged FIR.
8. The deceased in this case was Mst. Hashmat Bibi aged 75 years. In order to prove its case the prosecution produced two eye-witnesses, namely, Faqir Muhammad-complainant (PW4) who is son of the deceased and Muhammad Siddique (PW5) who is not related to the deceased and Sultan (given up as unnecessary). It is a case of single accused. Substitution is a rare phenomenon because it is not believable that the complainant who is son of the deceased would let off the actual killers of his mother and would falsely involve the appellant. There are seven injuries on the person of the deceased. Some are incised wounds and some are with blunt weapons. It means that different weapons have been used in the occurrence. There was no previous enmity between the parties. In fact the appellant has also admitted that he was residing in the house of the deceased for the last one month. Even in the inquest report name of the accused and number of the FIR were also mentioned. Razor and the clothes of the accused were found to be stained with human blood, according to the report of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist Ex. PP and Ex. PR.
9. In support of the plea of alibi taken by the appellant that he was in Chichawatni at the time of occurrence and was not present at the place of occurrence, neither before the police nor before the trial Court any witness in order to prove this plea has been produced to substantiate his said version, so, the same is an abortive attempt to make the said plea but failed.
10. As far as unnatural conduct of the eye-witnesses is concerned, we may state here that even in the FIR it was stated that when the PWs tried to interfere, they were threatened by the accused with dire consequences, who was armed not only with a Razor but also with a Danda. The eye- witnesses are most natural and their presence at the relevant time C. cannot be disbelieved. More so, during the trial they were subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing could be shaken from their testimony.
11. After going through the evidence on record we are of the considered opinion that there is no slightest doubt about the guilt of the appellant as the prosecution has proved its case against him beyond any shadow of doubt to sustain capital punishment and there is nothing on record warranting mitigation. Resultantly, this appeal, heaving no merit, is hereby dismissed, death sentence is confirmed and Murder Reference is answered in the affirmative.