' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 20-6-2001, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby, after having tried the appellant, he was convicted under sections 302/306/308, P.P.C. And sentenced to fourteen years' R.I. With a further direction to pay a Diyat amount of Rs, 2,69,176.00 to the legal heirs of the deceased. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to the appellant.
2. Brief facts of the case, as given by the complainant Mehboob Ashraf in the F.I.R. Are that on the fateful day of occurrence there was a quarrel between the appellant and his wife; that appellant's wife is his real sister; that his said sister apprehended that the appellant had taken her three children to school who did not turn back and she was worried about them at the hands of her husband Shaukat appellant; that the complainant went to school to inquire about them who was told that the appellant had taken the three children from school on a motorcycle to Sammundari Road; that the complainant along with other prosecution witnesses went towards the said place; that they saw the appellant on the canal bank along with the children, that in front of them the appellant had pushed his two sons Sajjad Haider and Gohar All in the canal; that Sajjad himself came out of the canal while his Bhanja Qasim Ali pulled out Gohar from the canal; that the said Qasim along with his brothers ran on the canal bank to save their lives; that the appellant followed them on motorcycle and hit them with it whereupon Qasim fell down in the nearby bushes on the right side whereas Gohar Ali was hit with the said motorcycle by the appellant his hand became injured and was pushed by the appellant in the canal; that the appellant thereafter left the motorcycle at the spot and decamped from the spot and committed the murder of Gohar deceased, real son of the appellant.
3. After having completed legal formalities, challan was submitted against the accused before the learned Court of competent jurisdiction, accused denied the charge and claimed trial, where, the prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused, produced fourteen witnesses during the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submits that the motive was not believed by the learned Trial Court; that the prosecution case is not believable because a father would not kill hisreal son on a quarrel with his wife; that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case because the complainant wanted to take forcible possession of the house of the appellant which is now in their possession; that the taxi driver and the persons who had seen the appellant while getting away his children from school were not produced; that the P.Ws. 9 and 10 deposed against the appellant under the influence of their mother while P.W.7 is Mehboob Ashraf who is the real maternal uncle of the deceased; that Qasim P.W.9 who was allegedly hit by the appellant with the motorcycle was not produced; that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant and that the appellant is entitled to acquittal by this Court.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the appellant is named in the F.I.R.; that he was found guilty during the course of investigation; that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and that this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have gone through the record with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also given anxious consideration to the submissions made at the bar by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The occurrence in this case had taken place on 9-9-1998 at 12.45 p.m., the matter was reported to the police at 2.30 p.m. On the same day in the Police Station and the distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station is five kilometers.
8. The complainant in this case is P.W.7 Mehboob Ashraf. He is brother-in-law (Sala) of the appellant Shaukat as her sister was married to him. He has no enmity with the appellant. The deceased in this case is Gohar Ali, aged six years, who was the real son of the appellant.
9. Prosecution in order to prove its case produced four prosecution witnesses, namely, the above P.W.7 Mehboob Ashraf, Muhammad Rafique P.W.8, Qasim P.W.9 and Sajjad P.W.10. It is pertinent to mention here that Sajjad and Qasim P.Ws. Are real sons of the appellant it is repellent to common sense that real sons would falsely depose against their father, so, their testimony is worthy of credence and inspires confidence. Their statements are corroborative to each other and nothing could be shaken from their testimony notwithstanding the fact that they were subjected to lengthy cross-examination.
10. Apart from above, the ocular account in this case was corroborated by the medical evidence in the form of P. W.13 Dr. Anwar Saud Saqib. According to the doctor "both Shalwar and Qameez were wetand stained with sand and mud/sand and mud were also present on the body..." so, the ocular account to the effect that the deceased was done to death while throwing him in the canal, finds support from the above medical report, Even otherwise, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased did not receive any injury on the backside if he was hit by the appellant with the motorcycle, has no force because Injury No,7 is on the backside of the head of deceased.
11. Now I would like to discuss the defence version taken by the appellant in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The version put forth by him was that his deceased son took a rented motorcycle and died in consequence to an accident at the canal bank and that he was involved by the complainant and his wife over a dispute of rupees three lac. The stand taken by the appellant does not appeal to common sense as he has failed to substantiate the same under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and moreso that it cannot be believed that a real mother would substitute the real killer of her child and would falsely involve the appellant. It appears the said stand was taken by the appellant just to save his skin. Therefore, when both the versions are taken into juxtaposition the ocular account is more plausible and convincing and the defence version has no legs to stand.
12. After having sifted grain from the chaff and after having applied independent judicial mind, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt to sustain conviction against the appellant. The learned Trial Court has already taken a very lenient view qua conviction despite the cruel act of killing his own son.
Resultantly, this appeal has no merit which is accordingly dismissed after having maintained the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned judgment, in toto.