MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.---This judgment will disposal of Criminal Appeal No,162-J of 2001 by Hamid Ali, who was convicted sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot, in case F.I.R. No,238, registered at Police Station Lalian, District Jhang, on 22-9-2000, for offences under sections 302/34, P.P.C., vide his judgment dated 25-4-2001 as under:- ' Death with compensation of Rs,100,000 or in default six months' R.I. Under section 302(b), P.P.C.
' Murder Reference No,370 of 2001 for confirmation or otherwise of death sentence of appellant shall also be disposed of through this single judgment.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in complaint Exh.PA by Rehman/ complainant (P.W.2) are that on 22-9-2000 the complainant along with his son Allah Ditta was returning from his Dera at 5-30 p.m. When they reached in front of the house of Hamid Ali, Hamid Ali armed with hatchet and his brother Mamand armed with Sota suddenly emerged from their house. Hamid Ali gave two hatchet blows on the head of Allah Ditta. While Allah Ditta fell down Hamid Ali gave another blow with his hatchet on his left arm. Meanwhile, Mamand gave four Sota blows on the person of complainant, which hit him on right side of his head, ear, nose and right elbow. Hue and cry of the complainant and his son attracted Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Ashraf to the place of occurrence, who witnessed the occurrence and beseeched the accused for the complainant and his son. Thereafter the complainant along with others shifted Allah Ditta to the RHC, Lalian. At that time Allah Ditta was unconscious. The Medical Officer after examining Allah Ditta, due to his serious condition, referred him to Allied Hospital, Faisalabad. Allah Ditta succumbed to the injuries early in the morning. After shifting the dead body of Allah Ditta to RHC, Lalian, the complainant reported the matter.
' The motive behind the occurrence, as stated in the F.I.R., was that a quarrel took place between Allah Ditta and the ladies of the accused party on the morning of day of occurrence over the drainage of water.
3. After registration of formal F.I.R., the investigation of the case was taken over by Muhammad Nawaz, S.-I./P.W.8. He proceeded to the RHC, Lalian, took over the dead body, prepared injury statement Exh.PF and inquest report Exh.PG. During spot inspection, he took into possession blood- stained earth vide memo. Exh.PD. On 2-10-2000 he arrested Hamid Ali and Mamand. While in custody on 4-10-2000, Hamid Ali led to the recovery of hatchet P-1 from the roof of a Chapper of his Dera, which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PB. On the same day Mamand led to the recovery of Sota P-2 from the same Chapper of his Dera, which was secured as memo. Exh.PC.
After completion of investigation, the accused were sent up to face trial.
4. At the trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case produced 10 witnesses in all. The prosecution after tendering in evidence the reports of Chemical Examiner Exh.PP and that of Serologist Exh.PQ closed its case. The appellant in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C.
While taking a specific defence plea, 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. It is pertinent to note here that the learned trial Court while acquitting Mamand co-accused of the charge of murder of Allah Ditta convicted him for offences under sections 337-A(ii)/337-L(ii)
P.P.C. And sentenced to undergo one year R.I. Mamand has filed no appeal but the complainant has preferred Criminal Revision No,386 of 2001 seeking enhancement of his sentence. At the time of hearing of this appeal it has been noticed that Mamand has served out his sentence. So in these circumstances, the learned counsel for the complainant does not press this revision, which has been disposed of accordingly vide order of even date passed in the said revision petition.
6. 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 Rehman P.W.2 was father of the deceased while Muhammad Nawaz P.W.3 was a chance witness; that the F.I.R. Was registered after unexplained delay after death of Allah Ditta with due deliberations; that the prosecution has failed to prove motive through independent source; and that in any case it was not a case of capital punishment, as it was a sudden affair because the deceased insulted the ladies related to the appellant.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submits that the complainant, father of the deceased, had received injuries on his person and his presence could not be denied; that Muhammad Nawaz was an independent person of the locality; that both the P.Ws. Have given a straightforward account of the occurrence and their statements are supported by the medical evidence; that delay stands explained in the F.I.R. Itself; that the complainant tried desperately to save life of his son; that the motive set down in the F.I.R. Stood explained; and that the appellant led to the recovery of blood-stained hatchet, which was found to be smeared with human blood.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State while adopting the line of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant support the judgment passed by the learned trial Court.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record carefully. The ocular account has been furnished by Rehman P.W.2 (father of the deceased) and Muhammad Nawaz P.W.3. P.W.2 received four injuries during occurrence and his presence cannot be denied. According to Ijaz Haider Khan P.W.9, on 22-9-2000 at 7-15 p.m. He examined Allah Ditta, who was brought by his father Rehman P.W.2, in the Hospital. During cross-examination he explained that when Rehman-complainant appeared before him on 22-9-2000 his clothes were stained with blood. Muhammad Nawaz P.W.3 is resident of the locality and is independent witness.
Neither Rehman nor Muhammad Nawaz had any previous enmity or ill-will against the appellant so as to depose falsely against him. The statement of both these P.Ws. Are consistent. They have corroborated each other on all the material points. They were cross-examined extensively but no dent could be caused in the veracity of their statements, which were fully supported by the medical evidence and corroborated by the circumstances of the case.
10. The delay in reporting the matter to the police stands fully explained. The occurrence took place at 5-30 p.m. The injured was then taken to the Hospital by Rehman P.W., who himself had sustained injuries. Dr. Ijaz Haider Rehman P.W.9 examined the deceased as well as the complainant. He referred Allah Ditta deceased to Allied Hospital, Faisalabad, as he was in serious condition. Allah Ditta unfortunately could not survive and lost his life in the morning, hence his body was brought back to the Hospital, Lalian, where the statement of the complainant was recorded. So the complainant, who is father of the deceased, remained busy in trying to save life of his son and could not report the matter to the police. Even otherwise, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. In this case would not adversely affect the prosecution case as no previous ill-will or enmity existed between the complainant and the deceased, nor the complainant had thrown very wide net.
11. The medical evidence fully supports the prosecution version, as according to doctor/P.W.9 at the time of examination he observed three injuries caused by sharp-edged weapon on the person of Allah Ditta. Two of the injuries were on the hand, while the third was on the back of left upper arm.
According to his opinion, the deceased lost his life due to injuries caused by sharp-edged weapon.
P.W.9 also examined Rehman on the same evening and found four injuries caused by blunt weapon on his person. The doctor advised admission in the hospital but the complainant refused in order to shift his son, to Allied Hospital, Faisalabad.
12. The ocular account is also corroborated by the motive, which has come out through the mouth of the E complainant as well as Muhammad Nawaz/P.W.3. As already noted above Muhammad Nawaz was an independent witness and no reason existed for him to depose falsely. Even otherwise, to this extent that an altercation took place between the deceased and the ladies folk of the appellant over drainage of water stands admitted. P.Ws.2 and 3 have clearly stated that altercation took place over drainage of rainy water in the morning while the occurrence took place at 5-30 p.m. during evening, so stance taken by the appellant that the occurrence took place during altercation between the ladies folk of the complainant party and the deceased is not proved from any evidence. Even otherwise no father would substitute a killer for an innocent person.
13. The appellant and his co-accused were arrested on 2-10-2000. On 4-10-2000 the appellant led to the recovery of bloodstained hatchet P.1 from the roof of Chapper of his Dera. According to the reports of Chemical Examiner as well as that of Serologist the hatchet was found to be stained with human blood. The recovery was effected from the place exclusively known to the appellant, hence, it cannot be said that it was planted on him.
14. The explanation given by Hamid Ali-appellant in his statement, recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In response to question No,8 suffers from confusion. According to him, the deceased insulted his female family members, pulled their hair and also pushed them in his presence but he did not interfere and Allah Ditta received injuries at the hands of some unknown person. In the later part of statement he stated that his first version before the police was that he had no intention to kill Allah Ditta-deceased and he had no enmity with Allah Ditta prior to the occurrence. Neither he appeared as witnesses in support of his plea under section 340(2), P.P.C. Nor he produced any defence witness or any of the women who were insulted. The defence plea is also not borne out from the circumstances of the case, hence, is rejected.
15. The upshot of the whole discussion is that we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt against the appellant through very reasonable ocular account which was fully supported by the medical evidence and corroborated by the circumstances of the case, motive and recovery of blood-stained hatchet. The appellant has acted in a very cruel manner by causing repeated blows with hatchet on the person of Allah Ditta deceased, who was empty-handed, hence, no mitigating circumstances existed in favour of the appellant.
16. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed. Murder Reference is answered in the affirmative. Death sentence is confirmed.
17. However, order passed by the learned trial Court under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Is maintained with slight modification that in default of payment of realization of compensation the appellant would suffer S.I. For six months.