' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--- Qasim Ali Shah son of Mian Noor Shah resident of Kot Ahmad Yar, Tehsil Chiniot, District Jhang has been granted leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 19-3-1999 of a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court whereby his appeal was rejected and the conviction and sentence recorded on 26-5-1997 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot under section 302, P.P.C. Against the appellant was maintained. His conviction had resulted into imprisonment for life and a compensation of Rs,20,000 under section 544-A, Cr.P.C.
2. In order to appreciate the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, it would be appropriate to keeping in mind the background revealed by Ahmed Ali Shah complainant in F.I.R.
No,137 of 1994 dated 22-4-1994 of Police. Station Saddar, Chiniot. On 22-4-1994 at Maghrib prayers time, the complainant Ahmed Ali Shah along with his brother Nasir All Shah and another Syed Mohsin Ali Shah were sitting in front of their Baithak. His brother Muhammad Ali Shah (deceased) was offering Maghrib prayers on a platform in front of the Baithak. No sooner did Muhammad All Shah step down the platform after completing his prayers than Qasim Ali Shah appellant armed with a .12 bore small shotgun (misnomered as carbine) appeared on the scene and fired at Muhammad All Shah. The victim fell prostrate on the ground. The complainant and his companions rushed towards the injured but were kept at bay by the appellant at gunpoint. Thereafter the assailant fired another shot that hit the deceased at his back. He died on the spot. The occurrence in late April (22-4-1994) had taken place at even time while the report was lodged at 8-15 p.m. At the police station. The complainant and the appellant are step-brothers who had dispute over landed property and also over the hand in marriage of some female.
3. The prosecution examined complainant Ahmed Ali Shah (P.W.4) and Mohsin All Shah as eye- witnesses. The testimony of the aforesaid two eye-witnesses is fully supported by post-mortem report, the motive, the single charge as well as prolonged abscondence of two years; the date of arrest of appellant being 25-3-1996. Apparently the two eyewitnesses could not all be shattered in the cross-examination. The prosecution has, therefore, proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
4. While assailing the prosecution case, learned counsel for the appellant raised his first objection that the place of occurrence is not established because in the F.I.R. It is given as Kot Ahmed Yar while, in the site plan (P.78), it was described as Daulat Pur. Reinforcement of the argument was sought from non-recovery of blood from the spot. We have considered the argument in the light of record and cannot consider it to be sound because Kot Ahmed Yar is the bigger village while Daulat Pur is its hamlet or Mohallah. There is no discrepancy at all with regard to the description of place of occurrence. So far as the non-recovery of blood from the spot is concerned, the injures are of such nature that they caused, according to doctor, internal bleeding. Because of internal bleeding there is every like lihood that the clothes, at the most, got bloodstained but the blood could not drop on earth. Moreover, when such injured are immediately lifted, the possibility of blood dropping on earth is mostly excluded. We are not, therefore, in doubt regarding either the place of occurrence or the specific spot of occurrence.
5. One witness had said that he had left the spot at 7-30 i,e, after half an hour of the occurrence.
This brings the occurrence to 7-00 p.m. While the sunset time on the relevant day was 6-35 p.m.
Learned counsel wanted to take benefit of such discrepancy and pointed to the non-presence of the witnesses. This also is not reasonable because even if one takes the time of sunset at 6-35, one would offer prayers, after prayer's call, at the most by 6-40 or 6-45. Even if one consumes ten minutes in completing the ritual, it would come to 6-55 p.m. Which is almost 7-00 p.m. The F.I.R.
Where the time of occurrence is given as that of Maghrib prayers, is not discrepant with the version of the witness according to the whom the occurrence took place at 7-00 p.m. It in any way, took place after the prayers.
6. The learned counsel further agitated that the time of occurrence is not in consonance with the post-mortem report. This is also incorrect because the occurrence having taken place at about 7- 00 p.m. On 22-4-1994, the post-mortem was conducted on the next day at 11-30 a.m. With a gap of about 16 hour and 30 minutes. The doctor has opined the time between injury and death as immediate and that between death and post-mortem as 14 to 18 hours. We would rather observe that the B post-mortem report has further, supported the time of occurrence as disclosed by the complainant.
7. The objection regarding non-recovery of crime weapon is also immaterial because normally no such weapon is plausible to be recovered when an accused is arrested after an abscondence of two years. So far as the motive is concerned, the grievance among the step-brothers is admitted by the accused.
8. Learned counsel lastly contended that in case of a counter-version, that plausibly taken by the accused must be preferred. After having examined the record, we observe that the instant one is not at all a case of any version, much less counter. The accused has resorted to plain and outright denial of the occurrence.
9. The prosecution having proved its case beyond doubt and the objections having been found immaterial, the two Courts have rightly recorded the conviction as well as the sentence. There being no force in the appeal, it is hereby dismissed.