' MUHAMMAD AHSAN BHOON, J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 26-2-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala, whereby he convicted the appellant under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C.And sentenced him to imprisonment for life as Tazir and also directed to pay compensation of Rs,25,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased as required under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. And in default thereof to undergo R.I. For 6 months. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to the appellant.
2. On the basis of the statement of Allah Yar (P.W.4), brother of the deceased Basara, recorded by Ghulam Rasool S.-I. (P. W . 9), at 5-40 a.m., F. I. R. Exh. P. A . /1 was lodged on 14-5-2000 at 7-20 a.m.
With P.S Satiana District Faisalabad for an ,occurrence which took place at Fajarwela on 14-5-2000 in the house of the deceased situated in Chak No,374/GH wherein he has stated that on 13-5-2000 at "Ishawela" he along with his brother Basara (deceased) was present in his house. Mokha and Mushtaq had also come there and as they remained there for a long period, they slept there.
Sometime before the Fajjar Aazan on the hearing of noise he and witnesses woke up. In the light of the bulb they saw Khizar Hayat, appellant-accused armed with hatchet, Iqbal, (acquitted accused) armed with Sota and Basara (acquitted accused) empty handed while present in the courtyard..
They were identified by the witnesses. Khizar Hayat raised a Lalkara that Basara (deceased) should be killed. Basara (acquitted accused) caught hold of the deceased Basara from his legs and Khizar Hayat appellant caused repeated hatchet blows hitting on the neck and near the chin of Basara deceased. Iqbal (acquitted accused) while armed with Sota restrained Mokha and Mushtaq witnesses to come for rescue of the deceased. On the hue and cry, the accused decamped from the spot.
3. The motive of the occurrence was that hand of Mst. Shamim sister of Khizar Hayat appellant- accused was demanded by Basara deceased which he had refused. Basara had been demanding the amount, which was given to Khizar Hayat appellant, and in order to grab the same, this occurrence was committed.
4. After recording the statement Exh.P.A./1 P.W.9 Ghulam Rasool S.-I. Went to the spot and sent the dead body to mortuary, collected the blood stained earth from the spot besides mattress P.5 and pillow P.6 etc. Which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.B. Iqbal and Khizar were arrested on 24-5-2000 and on 26-5-2000 Khizar led to the recovery of hatchet P.3 from his residential house, which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.C. Sota was recovered from Iqbal co- accused. Basara was found innocent during investigation.
5. After completion of the investigation report undex section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted and charge was framed which was denied by the appellant as well as his co-accused and they claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused produced 9 witnesses. The accused in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the allegations. P.W.1 Abdul Ghafoor, P.W.2 Arif Hussain and P.W.3 Liaqat Ali are formal witnesses and need not to be discussed while the ocular account has been furnished by P.W.4 Allah Yar and P.W.5 Mushtaq P.W.6 Dr. Anwar Saood Saqib had conducted the post-mortem examination and found two incised wounds on the body of the deceased while P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer of the present case. The learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment, which is being assailed through this appeal.
6. According to the claim of the appellant he had firstly filed jail appeal, which was not found traceable in the office record and that is the reason the same could not be heard along with connected Criminal Appeal No,1166 of 2002 filed by the appellant Basara against the impugned judgment, hence the present belated appeal was filed by the appellant, which through the order, dated 18-4-2006 passed by the Honourable Chief Justice ordered to be treated as having been filed in the year 2002.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that it was blind murder; ocular account was furnished by interested and inimical witnesses towards the appellant-accused; there is no independent evidence and the same evidence was disbelieved qua two acquitted accused; the motive part of the prosecution story was found false by the trial Court and prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt.
8. The learned D.P.-G., on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court.
9. Heard, Record perused.
10. Ocular account in this case was furnished by Allah Yar P.W.4, brother of the deceased, who is also complainant and Mushtaq P.W.5, nephew of the deceased and the complainant. Both eye- witnesses are quite natural and they have no animus against the appellant. They have given the details of each and every point about the time, date, causing of injuries and place of occurrence. It is available in the evidence as well as the F.I.R. That at the time of occurrence electricity bulb was on in the light of which the appellant-accused was seen by the eye-witnesses at the time of commission of crime. No suggestion was put forth by the defence that there was no source of light at the place where occurrence took place. The evidence of both the eye-witnesses cannot be termed as interested or inimical towards the appellant to falsely involve him in the present occurrence being closely related to the deceased. Defence was also unable to bring on record any other enmity of the appellant with the complainant or the P.Ws. To falsely implicate him in the occurrence. I may observe that it is settled principle of law that the evidence of natural witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the basis of relationship with the complainant or the deceased, if otherwise proved trustworthy. In the instant case, both the eye-witnesses are natural ones and their testimony cannot be brushed aside only because of their relationship with the deceased.
Further the ocular account is corroborated by medical evidence which is absolutely in the line with the ocular account.
11. Recovery of weapon of offence i.e. Hatchet was effected at the behest of the appellant which was duly proved by the prosecution through unimpeachable evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5, so the prosecution has proved the recovery of hatchet on the pointation of appellant.
12. As far as the acquittal of co-accused is concerned, they were not attributed any overt act of causing injury to the deceased or the P.Ws. And even police declared them innocent in the investigation. So the principle to sift the grain from the chaff is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and mere acquittal of the co-accused cannot be made basis to shatter the whole evidence against the appellant.
13. As far as motive part of the prosecution story is concerned, it is settled principle of law that it is always hidden in the mind of culprit and same is a state of mind of an accused, which cannot be proved through ocular account. It is always a guess of the prosecution witnesses and that was the reason the appellant was not awarded death penalty by the trial Court because the motive was not proved against the appellant. This Court had also observed at the time of deciding of appeal of co-accused Basara that the motive of the occurrence shrouded in mystery.
14. For what has been discussed above, this appeal having no merit is dismissed.