' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.-This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,107-J of 2003 as well as Murder Reference No,821 of 2002. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5-9-2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, whereby the convicted the appellant Muhammad Nadeem alias Deemi under section 302(b), P.P.C. In case F.I.R. No,389 dated 6-9-2001 for offence under section 302, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Baghbanpura, District Gujranwala, and sentenced him to death with a fine of Rs,3,00,000 as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default of payment of fine, to suffer 6 months' S.I.
2. The brief facts of the instant case as narrated by Abdul Aziz, the complainant, are that he along with his nephew Muhammad Sajid went to watch a cricket match in the ground of Islamia College, Gujranwala, where the appellant demanded some money from his nephew Muhammad Sajid but on his refusal, the appellant pulled out a dagger from his Dab and gave five/seven blows with it to Muhammad Sajid, thereafter, the appellant fled away from the spot. The injured fell down on the ground and was shifted to the hospital where' he, after a few days, succumbed to the injuries.
According to the complainant, besides him. The occurrence was also witnessed by Abdul Majeed and Muhammad Ilyas, P.Ws.
3. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as 13 witnesses including the eyewitnesses, doctor, witnesses of recovery, formal witnesses and the Investigating Officer. After tendering in evidence the reports of Chemical Examiner (Exh.P0 & Exh.PP) and that of the Serologist (Exh.PQ & Exh.PR), the learned District Attorney closed the prosecution evidence. The statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which he took the plea of self-defence and pleaded his innocence. The learned trial Court after taking into consideration every aspect of the case and hearing the arguments, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned above.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the prosecution has not produced any independent eyewitness at the trial in support of the ocular account; that since the eyewitnesses are closely related to the deceased, therefore, independent corroboration was required which is not forthcoming from any quarter; that the weapon of offence recovered from the appellant is of no consequence as the same was not bloodstained, as stated by the Investigating Officer at the trial; that the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. Of more than 24 hours has also made the case of the prosecution doubtful; that according to the testimony furnished by Dr. Gulzar Ahmad (P.W.6), who had conducted postmortem examination of the deceased, the dead body was brought by his father namely Abdul Hameed who being a very important witness was not produced at the trial and therefore, best evidence in the case was withheld by the prosecution; that the plea of self- defence extended by the appellant when kept in juxtaposition with the prosecution case is more convincing and that the learned trial Court has failed to properly appraise the evidence resulting in conviction of the appellant.
5. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General representing the State has contended that the eyewitness account is credible and is fully supported by the medical evidence; that the plea of self-defence taken by the appellant at the trial was not substantiated by him; that the evidence of recovery has also supported the prosecution case as the same is also credible and has been accepted by the learned trial Court as well, that the motive for the occurrence has been proved by the witnesses at the trial and that the conviction and sentence of the appellant is based on proper appraisal of evidence by the learned trial Court and, therefore, the same being in consonance with law does not call for any interference by this Court.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
7. The eyewitnesses account was furnished by Abdul Aziz (P.W.10) and Muhammad Ilyas (P.W.11).
According to the said witnesses on 5-9-2001 at about 4-00 p.m, they along with the deceased had gone to see a cricket match which was being held in the ground of Islamia College, Gujranwala.
The deceased was approached by the appellant who demanded some money from him but on his refusal, the appellant pulled out a dagger and gave a number of blows which landed on different parts of the body of the deceased. The appellant thereafter managed to escape. Sajid deceased on receiving the injuries fell down on the ground and was shifted to the hospital by the witnesses.
The deceased after a few days succumbed to the injuries. It has been noticed that the occurrence in this case took place at 4-00 p.m. i.e, in broad daylight in the ground of Islamia College, Gujranwala in the presence of a number of witnesses including the eyewitnesses cited in the F.I.R.
The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that although a number of independent witnesses were present at the place of occurrence, yet none has been produced at the trial by the prosecution and that evidence furnished by the eye-witnesses being closely related to the deceased cannot be relied upon. We are afraid, the argument has no force, as it is a matter of common knowledge that independent persons/witnesses of a murder case do not come forward to depose against the accused out of fear of reprisals. The A mere fact that the witnesses are related to the deceased does not ipso facto imply that their testimony has to be discarded. In the instant case the ocular account furnished by the two witnesses is credible and despite being subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence, no significant dent could be created in their testimony. On all material aspect of the case, the witnesses are unanimous and corroborate each other. Their presence at the spot is also fully explained which has not even been seriously questioned by the appellant at the trial. Admittedly, there is no background of previous enmity between the parties, hence the eyewitnesses cannot be termed as B inimical towards the appellant or that they had a motive to falsely implicate him. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, particularly as the said eyewitnesses had no or malice against the appellant, it is highly unlikely that they would depose falsely in order to implicate the appellant in the crime of murder. From the foregoing, it is evident that the prosecution to the extent of ocular account has furnished an accurate and creditworthy account which has rightly been accepted by the learned trial Court as such.
8. The medical evidence in the case was furnished by Dr. Gulzar Ahmad (P.W.6) who had medically examined the deceased on 5-9-2001 i.e, the date of occurrence and thereafter on his expiry on 9- 9-2001 when he conducted the postmortem examination. According to the said witness, the deceased had sustained seven incised wounds mostly on his chest which is the most vital part of the body. Injuries Nos.1 and 2 on the left side of the chest of the deceased were declared as sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The evidence furnished by this witness is conclusive as to the probable time that had elapsed between the receipt of injuries and death which was about 4 days, the number of injuries, locale thereof and the weapon used. The medical evidence is in line with the eyewitness account and provides necessary corroboration thereto.
9. Another piece of evidence which has lent support to the prosecution case in the recovery of Khanjar (P-1), the weapon of offence, at the instance of the appellant which was blood-stained and was sent for chemical analysis. According to the report of the Chemical Examiner (Exh.PP), the dagger was determined to be stained with blood and the pieces and scrapings sent for determination of origin of blood to Serologist, Government of Punjab, were found to be stained with human Blood, Exh.PR is the report of the Serologist in the said respect. The witnesses of recovery are police officials as no one from the surrounding area of the place of recovery was willing to associate himself with the recovery proceedings. This has come out in the cross-examination of Muhammad Akram-A.S-I. (P.W.13), who had witnessed the recovery of Khanjar from the appellant. It is settled law that police witness is as good a witness as any another, particularly in a case where no independent witness of the locality is willing to come forward to participate in the proceedings.
10. Adverting to the plea taken by the appellant at the trial that the instant case was a result of sudden flare up and that the appellant had caused "a Churri blow" in self-defence to the deceased, suffice it to say that this plea appears to have been introduced by the appellant at a subsequent stage in order to create a mitigating circumstance as otherwise this plea was not raised by the appellant during investigation. Even during trial when Muhammad Akram A.S-I. (P. W.
13), the Investigating Officer of the case, took the witness stand not even a suggestion was put to him by the defence in the said respect. For the sake of arguments, even if it be presumed that the deceased had been murdered in self-defence by the appellant, the number of injuries suffered by the deceased clearly reflect that the appellant had visibly exceeded his right of self-defence. To cover up the number of injuries suffered by the deceased in the occurrence, the appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Has only referred to "a Chhuri blow" implying that the appellant had only caused one blow without providing any explanation as to how the deceased had suffered the otner injures. In the above scenario, we have no hesitation in holding that the plea of self-defence advanced by the appellant is preposterous and cannot be accepted in the given circumstances. Insofar as the motive aspect of the case is concerned, the witnesses are consistent in their statements that the deceased had refused to give money to the appellant on his asking which had led to the occurrence resulting in the murder of the deceased. Although, the motive aspect has not been challenged by the appellant at the trial but the fact remains that motive can be formed at the spur of the moment.
11. In view of what has been discussed above, we are convinced that the prosecution has established its case against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction and sentence of the appellant, we dismiss his appeal. The death sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court is maintained. The Murder Reference is answered in the affirmative.