' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- Muhammad Siddique appellant was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, for having committed the murder of Abid Ali. Vide judgment, dated 29-6-2001, the learned trial Court convicted him for offence under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced him thereunder to death. He was further directed to pay Rs,1,00,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.
2. Aggrieved by his above noted conviction and sentence, Muhammad Siddique has filed the instant appeal, while the learned trial Court has made a reference bearing Murder Reference No,572 of 2001, seeking confirmation or otherwise of death sentence, as enjoined by section 374, of .The Criminal Procedure Code. Both these matters are being disposed of through this single judgment.
3. Briefly, the facts of the prosecution case, as narrated by Nasir Ali complainant, who was employed as Store Keeper in the Fertilizer Factory, are that on the fateful day (9-5-2000) at about 5-30 p.m. When the complainant was present in his office, he received information that his younger brother Abid Ali, who was also employed as Assistant Electrical Clerk in the aforesaid Factory, had been murdered in his office, whereupon he along with Abdul Rehman, Qaiser Javed and Allah Ditta went to the office of the Unit Manager, Electrical where they saw the dead body of Abid Ali lying in the Veranda in front of Electric Office.
4. On 9-5-2000, Nazar Hussain, S.-I./P.W.l 1, on receipt of information about the unfortunate occurrence, reached the spot, recorded the statement of the complainant (Exh.P.C.), prepared injury statement (Exh.P.G.) and inquest report (Exh.P.H.) and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He collected blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence and sealed the same into a parcel and took the same into possession vide memo. Exh.P.D. He recorded the statements of the P.Ws. Under section 161, Cr.P.C. He also prepared site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.P.K.).
Then he took into possession the last-worn clothes of the deceased consisting of Shalwar P.1, shirt P.2 and Sandal P.3/1-2 through memo. Exh.P.A. He then handed over the investigation to Fayyaz Ahmad, S.-I.
5. On 29-5-2000, Fayyaz Ahmad, S.-I./P.W.6, arrested Muhammad Siddique, accused/appellant, recovered from his personal search purse P.5, watch P.6 and Photo copy of Identity Card of Abid Ali and took the same into possession vide memo. Exh.P.E. On 1-6-2000, the accused, while in custody, led to the recovery of blood-stained dagger P.4, which was taken into possession through memo.
Exh.P.B. The Investigating Officer also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery (Exh.P.B./1). He recorded the statements of the P.Ws. Under section 161, Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, the appellant was challaned to face trial.
6. To prove its case at the trial, the prosecution produced eleven witnesses, including two eye- witnesses namely, Talib Hussain/P.W.3 and Muhammad Akram/P.W.4, who saw Abid Ali Shah (deceased) coming out of his office, in injured condition, followed by Muhammad Siddiqueappellant, who was armed with a dagger, and had given three blows to the deceased within their view. They had narrated these facts to the complainant as well as the police. After tendering in evidence the positive reports of Chemical Examiner Exhs.P.L., P.N., Serologist Exhs.P.M., P.O., the prosecution closed its side. Thereafter, the appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of this appeal, submits that appellant is not named in the F.I.R.; that it was an unseen occurrence; that two eye-witnesses Talib Hussain and Muhammad Akram are close friends and comrades of the complainant and belong to his Labour Union; that the complainant was present in his Union Office, while the duty of these eye-witnesses had come to an end at the time of occurrence, so they had no business to be present in the factory. Learned counsel submits that as far as the arrest of the accused is concerned, three different versions have come on record; that the complainant was a very influential person; that the Investigating Officer has admitted that when he reached in the factory, the complainant was present there along with three to four hundreds persons and the appellant was under his influence.
Learned counsel has referred to the statement of P.W.1 Dr. Asif Ali Syed, who was real brother of the complainant and the deceased and appeared as P.W. About the identification of dead body and recovery of dagger on the pointation of the appellant; that, in fact, Dr. Tariq Nawaz Babar P.W.7, who conducted the post-mortem examination, being under the influence of P.W.1, had not adopted the usual course of post-mortem examination; that he has not even prepared the diagram; that the motive in this case is shrouded in mystery. Lastly, he submits that the appellant being the poor man, was not in a position to engage a counsel and was, thus, represented by a learned counsel at State expense at the trial; that he was a stranger in the city, as he belonged to Mianwali, so he deserves leniency.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that P.Ws.3 and 4, the eye-witnesses, are independent witnesses; that they did not have any animous against the appellant; that there was no question of his false implication or substitution in the case; that he is a single accused. On these premises, the learned counsel has urged that the learned trial Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire record with their assistance.
10. The occurrence in this case took place on 9-5-2000 at 5-30 p.m. The matter was reported to the police at 6-00 p.m. And the formal F.I.R. Was registered at 7-15 p.m. On the same date. Distance between the police station and the place of occurrence was eleven kilometers. There is only one accused Muhammad Siddique and one deceased Abid Ali. Complainant in this case is Nasir Ali, real brother of the deceased. Much stress about the false implication of the appellant has been laid on the ground that the complainant was inimical towards the appellant, as he was opposing him in the Union Elections. Had there been this reason, the complainant would have mentioned the name of the appellant as accused in the first information report, which shows the bona fide of the complainant. In the instant case, eye-witnesses, Talib Hussain and Muhammad Akram, were examined by the trial Court as P.W.3 and P.W.4. They have fully implicated the appellant in this case. There were B thirteen injuries on the person of the deceased. Post-mortem was conducted on the same day at 8-00 p.m. By Dr. Tariq Nawaz Babar and the duration given by the doctor between death and post-mortem examination was within 2-1/2 hours which coincides with the time of occurrence. The appellant was arrested on 29-5-2000 and, thus, remained fugitive from law for about twenty days. On 1-6-2000. He got recovered the dagger and the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist (Exhs.P.L. And P.N. Respectively) with regard to the dagger, are positive in nature. The version of the appellant has been given by him in answer to question No,8, while making his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. In the following words:-- "I am innocent. In fact it is a blind murder. Police in order to get rid of this blind murder involved me in this case in collusion with the complainant party. Police arrested me on mere suspicion of addict and involved me in this case. I was not present at the time of occurrence on the place of occurrence."
11. A bare perusal of the above quoted version shows that it has no legs to stand. There was no question of false implication of the appellant. The ocular account is fully supported by medical evidence. The ocular account has come from unimpeachable source having intrinsic value and cannot be disbelieved with any stretch of imagination. As far as contention of the learned counsel for the appellant about the mitigating circumstance that the appellant was provided a counsel at State expense is concerned, we have gone through the cross-examination conducted by him, which was to the point and brief and this cannot be a ground for lesser sentence. There are thirteen injuries on the person of the deceased. He was killed mercilessly. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the motive in this case is shrouded in mystery, so the appellants deserves leniency, is concerned, suffice it to say that the same is not helpful to the appellant. Reference in this respect may be made to the cases of Waris Khan v. The State 2001 SCMR 347 and Syed Hamid Mukhtar Shah v. Muhammad Azam and 2 others 2005 SCM R 427, wherein it has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court that even if the motive is not proved and the eye-witness account is believable, then the only sentence is death. In the instant case, as observed above, the ocular account is not only believable but also corroborated by the medical evidence as well as the recovery of dagger from the appellant and the positive reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist with regard to the dagger/crime weapon.
12. Resultantly, we find no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed. The death sentence is confirmed.
The Murder Reference stands answered in the affirmative.