' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.---This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,453 of 2000 filed by Shabbir Hussain, who was convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, vide his judgment, dated 4-3-2000 as under:-- ' Death with compensation of Rs,50,000 or in default six months' S.I. Under section 302(b), P.P.C.
' Murder Reference No,295 of 2000 for confirmation or otherwise of death sentence of appellant shall also be replied through this single judgment.
2. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in F.I.R. Exh.P.F. By Muhammad Pervez/complainant/P.W.6 in his statement before Manzoor Khaliq, S.I./S.H.O., Police Station, Sohdra, on 5-4-1997 are that Shabbir Ahmad Cheema accused had a Nursery of Popular plants in Shamlatdeh in front of house of the complainant. Some unknown persons caused damage to the plants belonging to the accused.
' Womenfolk of family of accused abused ladies of complainant family. On 4-4-1997 at evening time while the ladies of two families were exchanging abuses and quarrelling with each other, complainant, his father Muhammad Hussain, brother Abid Hussain and uncle Ahmad Hussain were also present at .The said place, Shabbiraccused armed with dagger came there. He abused complainant and asked him that why womenfolk of his family were insulted. Shabbir made an attack upon the complainant with his dagger but the complainant went on backside. Muhammad Hussain father of the complainant intervened and accused with dagger caused injuries on his person, who fell down. Shabbir along with his dagger ran away from the spot. The complainant, Abid Hussain and Ahmad Hussain P.Ws. Witnessed the incident. Muhammad Hussain was brought to Civil Hospital, Wazirabad in injured condition, but due to his serious condition, he was referred to Civil Hospital, Gujranwala, where first aid was provided to him but due to said injuries he died in the Hospital during night in between 4/5-4-1997.
3. After registration of formal F.I.R., the investigation of the case was taken over by Manzoor Khaliq, S.I./P.W.9. He took over the dead body of the deceased in Civil Hospital, Wazirabad, prepared injury statement Exh.P.D. And inquest report Exh.P.C. He inspected the place of occurrence and took into possession blood- - stained earth from the spot vide memo. Exh.P.J. On 1-5-1997 he arrested Shabbir Hussain appellant. On the same day, Shabbir Hussain led to the recovery of dagger, which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.H. 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 9 witnesses in all. The prosecution after tendering in evidence the reports of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.E. And Exh.P.M. And that of Serologist Exh.P.N. And Exh.P.P. Closed its case. The accused in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Pleaded his innocence. He did not appear as witness under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. After conclusion of trial the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated 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 occurrence took place in the Nursery of the appellant; that it is in evidence that the plants belonging to the appellant had been destroyed; that it is also admitted that there was no previous hostility between the parties; the learned counsel submits that the occurrence was the result of sudden affair and the appellant got provoked after hearing abuses, which were being heard by his womenfolk; that there was unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R.; that probably the matter was not reported to the police immediately as the complainant knew that his ladies were at fault; that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution version as the deceased had four injuries, one of the injuries was caused by blunt weapon and has not been explained by the prosecution; and that the appellant has clean record and does not deserve the extreme penalty of death in any case.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Was plausibly explained by the complainant; that both the witnesses had no previous enmity so as to depose falsely against the appellant; and that the ocular account is fully supported by the medical evidence and the circumstances of the case. The learned counsel has referred to the cross-examination of the complainant available at page 25 of the paper book, wherein it was suggested that the occurrence was the result of sudden provocation. The learned counsel supports the judgment passed by the learned trial Court.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record minutely.
8. Undeniably, the occurrence took place in front of the house of the deceased across the road in an open place, which was being used as nursery by the appellant. According to prosecution case, the womenfolk of the appellant abused the ladies belonging to the complainant party and the ladies were abusing each other when the appellant reached there armed with dagger and launched murderous assault upon the complainant, who escaped and when his father Muhammad Hussain tried to rescue him the appellant gave three dagger blows on the abdomen of Muhammad Hussain, who fell down and was taken by the complainant to Civil Hospital, Wazirabad. Since the condition of the injured was serious, the complainant was advised to take him to Civil Hospital, Gujranwala, where the injured was attended to by the doctor but he could not survive and his dead body was taken back to the Civil Hospital, Wazirabad. Muhammad Pervez/complainant, son of the deceased, and Ahmad Hussain brother of the deceased are the natural witnesses as already noted above they lived in front of the place of occurrence across the road. There is nothing on record to show that any grudge or enmity existed between the P.Ws. And the appellant so as to involve him in a false case rather during cross-examination the complainant stated that he had no enmity with the accused before this incident and that he enjoyed good terms with the appellant. It is a case of single accused. The occurrence took place when the light was available and there was not a single reason for substitution of the appellant for the real killer.
The statements of the witnesses are also fully supported by the medical evidence and corroborated by the circumstances of the case. The tenor of cross-examination suggests that the occurrence was admitted. The relevant portion available at page 25 of the paper book is being reproduced. "It is correct that accused came at the place of occurrence saw the quarrel between ladies and under provocation caused injuries on the person of my father."
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has laid much stress on the delay in lodging the F.I.R. It may be mentioned here that the delay has been plausibly explained by the complainant, whose prime importance was to save the life of his father. His explanation is supported by the statement of Dr. Ghulam Murtaza P.W.2, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Hussain. The Doctor observed three incised wounds on the abdomen of Muhammad Hussain deceased and wounds had been stitched, which clearly denotes that prior to post- mortem examination the deceased was attended to by the Doctor. The argument of the learned counsel that the medical evidence was not in line with the ocular account is devoid of any force as three injuries were caused by sharp-edged B weapon. As far as the fourth injury was concerned that was only an abrasion and could be the result of fall of the deceased after receipt of injuries.
The learned counsel has vehemently argued that it was not a case of capital sentence. According to him, the appellant reached the spot and saw the ladies quarrelling with each other, .Which provoked him and under provocation and at the spur of moment he caused injuries to Muhammad Hussain deceased. The learned counsel added that admittedly there was no previous enmity- between the parties and the occurrence was the result of sudden affair. We have very seriously and sympathetically considered the argument of the learned counsel. We could not persuade ourselves to agree with the learned counsel that mitigating circumstances existed in favour of the appellant, as it has been noticed by us that the ladies were quarrelling with each other when the appellant reached the spot. It is not' the case of the appellant that the ladies hurled abuses at him or witnesses hurled any abuse at the ladies or the ladies were grappling with each other. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant acted under provocation. He went to the spot armed with dagger and took life of an innocent person by causing not one but three injuries all on the abdomen of the deceased. The appellant has acted in a cold-blooded manner and the learned trial Court has rightly inflicted the normal penalty of death upon him.
10. Resultantly we dismiss this appeal and uphold the judgment passed by the learned trial Court.
11: Murder Reference is answered in the affirmative. Death sentence is confirmed.