' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.---This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8-5- 2000 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Jhang, whereby he convicted the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to death. He shall also pay Rs,20,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default whereof he shall undergo R.I. For six months in case F.I.R. No,631 dated 1-10-1997 registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Saddar, Jhang.
2. The Investigating Officer after completion of investigation submitted the challan before the learned trial Court. Charge was framed. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case, produced as many as 11 witnesses. The appellant did not produce evidence in his defence. He also did not appear as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
3. Dr. Liaqat All Medical Officer conducted the post-mortem of the deceased and found following injury on the body of the deceased:-- ' Multiple fire-arm wound of entrance in an area of 19 c.m. x 9 c.m., each measuring 8 c.m. x 8 c.m.
On back of right chest 8 c.m. Lateral to mid line.
' In his opinion death was occurred due to haemorrhage and shock resulting from fire-arm injury.
The above said injury is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Probable time between injury and death was about half an hour and that of between death and post-mortem was about 12 to 18 hours.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the evidence has not been appreciated by the learned trial Court in its true perspective and the judgment is not in accordance with the safe principle of administration of criminal justice.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the learned trial Court.
6. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the entire evidence with their assistance.
7. The ocular account consists of the statements of P.W.7 Muhammad Ramzan and P.W.8 Muhammad Bakhsh P.W.7 deposed that deceased Muhammad Khan had gone to village Budheykee to arrange articles of dowry for his niece while he was away to Khewa. At about 3-30 p.m. While returning to his village when reached at Adda Riksha Budheykee, he found the deceased sitting at a bench in tea stall. Muhammad Bakhsh P.W.8 and Farid son of Ahmad were also sitting with him.
' Appellant armed with ..12 bore carbine emerged at the place of occurrence Acquitted co-accused Haq Nawaz raised a Lalkara shouting that Muhammad Khan deceased be not spared upon which appellant fired a shot with his carbine which landed on the backside of chest of the deceased.
Appellant fired a second shot which did not hit, the deceased. He in the company of Farid and Muhammad Bakhsh took the deceased to the hospital on Rikshaw but he lost his breath on his way to the hospital.
8. He also stated that motive behind the occurrence was that Muhammad Khan deceased has sold a buffalo to the appellant in consideration of Rs,5,000 which on demand was not paid by the appellant resulting into an altercation between them. The appellant nursing grudge caused murder of the deceased. He made the statement before the Investigating Officer, who registered the formal F.I.R.
9. P.W.8 deposed that he was sitting along with deceased at Adda Riksha Budheykee when the appellant armed with carbine emerged at the scene of occurrence along with his son Haq Nawaz.
Haq Nawaz raised a Lalkara upon which the appellant fired a shot with his carbine on the deceased which landed on his back. He fell down on the ground. He fired a second shot which missed. Muhammad Khan was being removed to the hospital in a Rikshaw but he succumbed to the injuries on his away. Both the witnesses were cross-examined. P.W.7 was not seriously cross- examined in respect of the occurrence. He however was given a suggestion that the deceased was maintaining illicit relations with many women and that he has also maintained relations with Mst.
Sattan niece of the appellant. The appellant forbade the deceased in this respect. The plea put forward through the cross-examination of the P. Ws. As well as in statement under section 342 Cr.P.C. Is that in odd hours of the night deceased was murdered by some unknown culprits and appellant was substituted. On record there is no material to support the pleas of appellant. The occurrence took place at 3-30 p.m. On 1-10-1997. The appellant was rushed to the hospital for his treatment P.W.7 made statement in the hospital premises at 6-30 p.m. The post-mortem was conducted on the next day at about 8-00 a.m. Probable time given by the Medical Officer between death and post-mortem was 12 to 18 hours. The post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased was commenced at 8-00 a.m. According to the Medical Officer the death of the deceased had occurred within a period of 1/2 hour from the time of injury. In this manner at the time of post-mortem examination 1630 hours had elapsed. This indicates the version of the appellant that murder was committed at off hours of the night on 1-10-1997.
10. Both the prosecution witnesses made consistent statements. No reason appears on record for substitution of the appellant for the real culprits. The ocular account is worth of credence. Mere relationship of the witnesses is no ground to discard their evidence which withstood the test of cross-examination.
11. The medical evidence has been furnished by P.W.4 Dr. Liaqat Ali. His narration of the injuries is in line with the ocular account. The same furnishes full corroboration to the ocular account.
12. Recovery has been disbelieved by the learned trial Court. Learned co nisei for the State has not been able to dislodge the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. We have examined ourselves, the evidence on this account has not been able to convince ourselves to take a different view to that of the learned trial Court.
13. The motive part of the prosecution story is stated by P.W.,7. The learned trial Court believed the same. The appellant did not deny the sale of buffalo in his favour by the deceased against a consideration of Rs,5,000. It was still payable and being demanded by the deceased. It was also deposed that an altercation had taken place between the appellant and the deceased on this score. Reasons given in support of motive part of the prosecution story are apparently correct.
14. The appellant was attributed fatal shot to the deceased. He was being accompanied allegedly by his son Haq Nawaz acquitted co-accused. Had there been any chance of false implication the complainant certainly would have given the name of real co-accused with Haq Nawaz son of the appellant. No injury has been caused by Haq Nawaz. After examining the arguments of both the sides, we are of the firm view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment of the learned trial Court is unexceptionable. No misreading or non-reading has been pointed out.
15. For what has been discussed above, this appeal having no force is dismissed. The murder reference is answered in the 'affirmative.