' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.- Akhtar Muhammad son of Pir Muhammad appellant was tried by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kot Addu District Muzaffar Garh under sections 302/324/337-A(ii)/ 201/148/149, P.P.C'. For committing murder of Abdul ICarim and for causing injuries to Muhammad Khan, Ghani Khan, Ghulam Muhammad, P.Ws. And was convicted and sentenced vide judgment, dated 29-6-2002.
2. Brief facts of the case, as per complaint Exh.P.G. Recorded on the statement of Yar Muhammad, complainant (P.W.6) are that on 13-5-1998 at about 12 noon the , complainant Abdul Karim, deceased and other P.Ws. Were present in front of the shop of one Mushtaq Ahmad. In the meanwhile Sher Dil Khan while empty handed, Khairoo, Abdullah and Akhtar (appellant) armed with hatchets, Naurang Khan, Luoving Khan and Yaroo armed with Sotas emerged at the scene.
Yaroo co-accused of the appellant asked from Ghulam Muhammad, P.W. As to why he had not returned the borrowed money and that they would receive said amount at any cost. Due to said reason an altercation took place. Thereafter Sher Dil, co-accused gave injury on the face'of Muhammad Khan by brick batting; Khairoo co-accused caused hatchet injury on the head of Ghani P.W.; while Abdullah co-accused caused hatchet blow on the head of Ghulam Muhammad, Naurang Khan and Luoving Khan co-accused caused Sota blows to Ghulam Muhammad, Akhtar present appellant gave hatchet blow on the head of Abdul Karim, deceased who became unconscious and fell down. Thereafter Yaroo, co-accused caused successive Sota blows to said Abdul Karim. It was further stated in the complaint that during the said occurrence Luoving Khan and Naurang Khan, co-accused also received injuries.
' Motive as stated in the F.I.R. Was that Ghulam Muhammad, P.W. Had bprrowed some money from Yaroo accused, but he failed to repay the same.
3. Muhammad Khan, Ghani Khan and Ghulam Muhammad, injured P.Ws. Were transported to RHC D.D. Panah Hospital while Abdul Karim was sent to T.H.Q. Hospital Kot Addu. On receiving the information Zahoor Ahmad, S.-I. P.W. 11 visited R.H.C. D.D. Panah, where Yar Muhammad complainant made a statement (Exh.P.G.) which was recorded by him. On the basis of said statement formal F.I.R. Exh.P.G./2 was registered. Said police officer visited the spot and collected bloodstained earth which was preserved in sealed parcel. Thereafter he drafted the rough site- plan and recorded the statements of P.Ws. Under section 161, Cr.P.C. Whereafter he prepared injury statements of the injured P.Ws. On 14-5-1998 he was informed that Abdul Karim had died in Nishtar Hospital Multan, upon which offence under section 302, P.P.C. Was added. Thereafter he completed all the other requisite formalities whereafter the investigation was taken over by Muhammad Shall, Inspector/ S.H.O
4. Dr. Muhammad Rashid, M.O. (P.W.2) examined Abdul Karim in THQ Hospital Kot Addu and found the following injuries on his person:-
(1) Incised wound 8 c.m. x 2 c.m. On left side of head. It was 6 c.m, from midline and was parallel to midline. Bone was exposed from wound.
(2) A lacerated wound 6 c.m. x 1 c.m. On left side of head and 2 c.m. Lateral to injury No,
1. Swelling 8 c.m. x 6 c.m. Was around the injuries Nos.l and 2 on the top of head.
(3) A lacerated wound 1-1/2 c.m. x 10 c.m. On lateral aspect of right forearm about 9 c.m. Above to right wrist joint.
(4) Large contusion mark 12 c.m. x 10 c.m., was on the top and frontal aspect of right shoulder.
(5) Contusion mark 10 c.m. x 3 c.m. Was on right renal area.
(6) Contusion mark 8 c.m. x 2 c.m. Was on back of middle of chest. It was in oblique direction.
' According to said doctor the cause of death was neurogenic shock caused by injuries Nos.l and 2 and injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He further observed that Injury No,l was caused by a sharp edged weapon.
5. Ghulam Muhammad, Ghani Khan and Muhammad Khan, injured P.Ws. Were medically examined by Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, P.W. 3, who found six injuries on the person of Ghulam Muhammad. Out of said injuries one was incised wound and rest were contusions and lacerated.
' On the person of Ghani Khan two injuries were found, one incised and other contusion.
' On examination of Muhammad Khan, injured P.W. Said doctor found single injury which was contusion.
6. After the occurrence all the accused including the appellant became fugitive from law. The appellant however., was arrested on 27-11-1998 and after the investigation he was found guilty and consequently challaned.
7. During the trial the prosecution produced as many as 13 witnesses out of whom Bashir Ahmad, Patwari appeared as P.W.l and proved the site-plan, Dr. Muhammad Rashid appeared as 'P.W. 2 and proved the medico-legal report of Abdul Karim deceased. Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, who as stated above, medically examined Ghulam Muhammad, Ghani Khan and Muhammad Khan, P.Ws.
Appeared as P.W. Yar Muhammad, Ghulam Muhammad and Ghani Khan appeared as P.Ws.6, 7 and 9 and deposed the ocular version of the occurrence. Out of Said eye-witnesses Ghulam Muhammad and Ghani Khan appeared as injured witnesses. Mirza Khan, Moharrir who recorded the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.G./2 appeared as P.W. 10, Zahoor Khan who conducted the preliminary investigation appeared as P.W. 11 while Muhammad Shafi retired Inspector who. Completed the investigation and prepared the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Appeared as P.W.
12. Dr. Bashir Ahmad, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Abdul Karim appeared as P.W.
13. Rest of the witnesses are formal in nature.
8. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. He denied the prosecution case and claimed that he was not present-at the time of occurrence. However, according to him a quarrel took place between Yar Muhammad and Ghulam Muhammad and during the said occurrence brick bats were exchanged. He did not opt to appear in his defence under section 340(2) of Cr.P.C. The trial culminated into the conviction of the appellant who was found guilty under section 302(b), P.P.C. And 201, P.P.C. Under section 302(b), P.P.C. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life with compensation amounting to Rs,2,00,000 under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default of same he was ordered to undergo six months S.I. While under section 201, P.P.C. He was sentenced to seven years R.I. Along with fine of Rs,20,000 and in case of default he was directed to undergo six months R.I. Further and then amount of compensation was also ordered to be recovered as arrear of land revenue. However, sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the benefit of section 382- B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to him.
9. While arguing the case the learned counsel for the appellant has not seriously challenged the conviction and has prayed only for conversion of the conviction from section 302(b), P.P.C. To section 302(c), P.P.C.
10. Learned counsel for the State has, however, supported the conviction.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. As far as conviction under section 302(b), P.P.C. Is concerned there is sufficient material available in the form of ocular evidence which includes evidence of Ghulam Muhammad P.W.7 and Ghani Khan P.W.9 who are injured witnesses. It is a day time occurrence. The venue and the time of occurrence has not been challenged by the appellant. The ocular evidence has got ample support from the medical evidence. The part attributed to the appellant of causing hatchet blow to Abdul Karim deceased is fully corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Muhammad Rashid P.W.2 who . Medically examined Abdul Karim on 13-5-1998 and found incised wound of 8 c.m. x 2 c.m. On the left side of his head. All the injuries suffered by Abdul Karim injured were declared by him as dangerous to life. Dr. Saghir Ahmad P.W.13 who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Abdul Karim affirmed said medico-legal report.
12. As stated above, the venue and the time of occurrence has not been denied by the appellant.
He however, claimed that he was not present at the time of occurrence which according to him was sudden one but he failed to appear under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. In his own defence to support said plea. However, he produced certain documents in his defence which also do not advance his case. For above mentioned reasons there is no ground for discarding the prosecution version which is supported by injured witnesses. Furthermore during the investigation the appellant along with his all the co-accused was declared proclaimed offender and till today his co- accused are absconders. The appellant remained fugitive from law for a period of 6-1/2 months which also corroborates the prosecution version. Apart from the motive, as mentioned in the FIR. There is no serious enmity between the parties and, therefore, the witnesses cannot be termed as interested witnesses. Narration of all the above reasons shows that as far as the commission of offence of murder is -concerned, prosecution has proved the same to its hilt and beyond any shadow of doubt.
13. Now I take up the plea of learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction and sentence should be converted from section 302(b) to section 302(c), P.P.C. This contention is found to be .
Without merit. The appellant caused hatchet blow on the head of the deceased which coupled with the other injures caused the death of the deceased. The offence was committed on a petty issue. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the accused had not come on the spot with intention to commit Qatl-e-Amd but this contention is without any force as intention of the accused to commit some offence is always gathered from the attending circumstances of each case like weapon of the offence used in the crime, locale of injuries, number of the injuries and the force used by the accused and it is established law that intention to commit the crime can be developed even at the spur of the moment. Number of accused persons who carried the hatchets and Sotas along with the appellant shows that the arrival of the accused at the spot was not so innocent as" claimed, by the defence. The weapon of offence selected by the appellant, locale of injury caused by him and the force he used along with the fact that his co-accused caused so many injuries not only to the deceased but to the injured P.Ws. Also make it crystal clear that the appellant along with his co-accused committed intentional murder of the deceased and as such he has been rightly convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. As far as the plea of suddenness of the affair is concerned, that has already been considered, by the learned trial Court while awarding lesser sentence to him and as such conviction and sentences awarded to; the appellant call for no interference. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.