The appellant, namely, Muhammad Nadeem alias Nanha alias Billa Sher son of Muhammad Hanif was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nankana Sahib, in case bearing F.I.R No, 33/2002, dated 24.2.2002, registered with Police Station City Nankana Sahib, for offence under Section 302 P.P.C. The learned trial Judge by virtue of his judgment dated 14.12.2002 found him guilty of committing Qatl-e-Amd of Faqir Muhammad deceased, convicted under Section 302(b)
P.P.0 and sentenced him to death alongwith fine of Rs, 20,000/- and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. He was further directed to pay a sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased by way of compensation under Section 544-A Cr.P.C.
2. The appellant by filing this appeal has called in question the conviction and sentence awarded to him vide the impugned judgment, whereas the learned trial Judge has sent Murder Reference No, 136 of 2007 for confirmation of said death sentence.
3. Precisely the allegations against the appellant, according to the F.I.R. which was got registered by Tanveer Abbas, complainant, son of the deceased, (PW-4), are that on 24.2.2002 at 4:10 a.m., he alongwith Irfan Ahmad was going on a Motorcycle from Goal Chakkar to Railway Road and when he reached near Muhammad Afzaal present in Beri wala Chowk, he saw his father Faqir Muhammad' lying on right side of the road in front of Mughal Tent Service. Nadeem alias Nanha appellant was inflicting chhurri blows on the person of Faqir Muhammad. People started gathering at the spot and when the complainant, Irfan Ahmad and Muhammad Afzaal tried to apprehend the accused, he managed to escape while brandishing the chhurri. The complainant and others were shifting Faqir Muhammad to the Civil Hospital, Nankana Sahib in an injured condition but he succumbed to the injuries on way.
4. At the trial the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Tanveer Abbas, complainant, appeared as Ply-4 and averred tin the same lines as the F.I.R. Abdul Ghafoor appeared as PW-1, Lashkar Ali appeared as PW-3, Muhammad Afzaal appeared as PW-5, Zulfiqar Ali Kamran appeared as PW-6, Muhammad Younis Constable, appeared as PW-7, Ali Ahmed Constable, appeared as PW-9, Farmaish Ali, A.S.I., appeared as PW-10 and Ghulam Sarwar, Sub Inspector appeared as PW-11 who recorded the statement of the complainant (Ex.PH/1) on 24.2.2002; went to the place of occurrence secured the blood-stained earth and after making it into a sealed parcel took the same into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PF; drafted a rough site-plan Ex.PK; prepared the injury statement Ex.PB, Inquest report Ex.PE and application for postmortem Ex.PC; took into possession last worn clothes of the deceased Shalwar P-2, Kameez P-3, Saloka P-4 and Waist Coat P-5 after postmortem examination of the deceased vide recovery memo Ex.PJ; recorded the statements of the witnesses; arrested the accused and obtained physical remand on 28.2.2002; got recovered chhurri, weapon of offence, Ex.P-1 during investigation on 3.3.2002 from the outer Northern wall of Govt. Guru Nanik Degree College, Nankana on the disclosure of the accused and took the same into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PG and got inspected the place of occurrence through the draftsman on 25.2.2002 who handed over to him a scaled site-plan Ex.PA and Ex.PA/1. Dr. Khalid Mahmood appeared as PW-2. He conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased.
5. On the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.0 was recorded by the learned Trial Court. In answer to the question as to why the case against him and why the PWs had deposed against him, Muhammad Nadeem appellant replied that he had been involved due to suspicion and the PWs are inter se related with the complainant and the deceased. The appellant neither appeared as his own witness in terms of Section 340(2) Cr.P.0 nor did he produce any evidence in his defence.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the complainant is not the witness of motive as he has failed to provide any details of the money dispute between the appellant and the deceased; that dishonest improvements were made by the complainant in his statement before the trial Court which are sufficient to vitiate the trial; that the prosecution has concealed material facts, that Tanveer Abbas (PW-4) had not witnessed the occurrence as he was living at a place two furlong away from the place of occurrence and no plausible reason has been provided by him for his coming to the spot at the relevant time; that the witnesses have failed to mention in the F.I.R the seat of injuries received by the deceased; that Tanveer Abbas (PW-4) in his examination-in- chief has not given the time when the occurrence had taken place; that the number of injuries suffered by the deceased suggest that the murder was committed by more than one person; that' no independent witness was produced by the prosecution at the trial from the vicinity of the occurrence; that in fact it was an un-witnessed occurrence and the eye-witnesses had implicated the appellant on the basin of suspicion only; that the recovery of weapon of offence from the appellant was not free from doubt as the recovery witness Lashkar Ali (PW-3) in his statement before the trial Court did not mention that chhurri (P-1) was stained with blood; that the place from where the weapon was recovered was an open place and that keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the case, it was a case for award of lesser sentence.
7. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General while representing the State has contended that the occurrence took place in broad daylight; that the F.I.R was lodged promptly by the complainant which excludes the possibility of false implication of the appellant; that the eye- witnesses are natural and their presence at the spot cannot be doubted; that the medical evidence is in line with the ocular account which has received further support from the recovery of weapon of offence from the appellant; that the motive as set up by the prosecution has been established at the trial through the testimony of Tanveer Abbas (PW-4); that there is no plausible reason for the complainant to let off the real culprit in order to falsely implication the appellant in the case and that the judgment of the trial Court is based on proper appraisal of evidence which, therefore, does not call for interference by this Court.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Deputy Prosecutor- General and have gone through the file with their able assistance.
9. The eye-witness account in this case has been furnished by Tanveer Abbas (PW-4), the son of the deceased and complainant of the F.I.R, and Muhammad Afzaal (PW-5). It has been noticed that Muhammad Afzaal (PW-5) is an independent witness who is neither related to the deceased nor the complainant of the F.I.R and his presence at the place of occurrence is natural, well explained and free from doubt. According to Tanveer Abbas, (PW-4), on 24.2.2002 at 4:10 p.m. in his presence and in his view the appellant inflicted chhurri blows on the person of Faqir Muhammad deceased in consequence of an altercation Which had taken place between the appellant and the deceased at 10:00 a.m. the same day over a money dispute. The statement of this witness with the exception of motive aspect of the case, has received corroboration in all 'material particulars from the statement made by Muhammad Afzaal (PW-5) who, as mentioned earlier, is an independent witness and has no plausible reason to falsely implicate the appellant in the crime. Some minor discrepancies have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the statements of these two witnesses which in our view are trivial in nature and do not in any way adversely effect the merits of the prosecution case or reflect negatively on the evidence furnished by the said witnesses. The presence of the witnesses is natural which even otherwise has not been seriously questioned by the defence. We have no hesitation in holding that the ocular account furnished by the witnesses is unimpeachable and creditworthy and has rightly been accepted by the learned trial Court as such.
10. The medical evidence in the case was furnished by Dr. Khalid Mahmood (PW-2) who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 24.2.2002 at 9:00 p.m. and found the following injuries on his body:--
1. Multiple stab wounds all around the Umbilicus.
2. Two stab wound in lower central chest.
3. Two stab wounds on the back of chest one on the left side and other on the right side.
4. Two stab wounds on the front of left thigh.
5. One stab wound on the back of right knee."
According to Dr. Khalid Mahmood (PW-2), all the injuries were ante mortem and caused by a sharp edged weapon. The death was caused due to bleeding and shock individually on account of Injuries No, 3 and 5 and collectively on account of all the injuries which were sufficient to cause death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature. The time between the receipt of injury and death was stated as immediate whereas between the death and post-mortem as six hours. The account furnished by this witness is in consonance with the eye-witness account and the same is conclusive as to the time of occurrence, the locale of injuries and the weapon used.
11. Adverting to the evidence of recovery of blood-stained chhurri (P-1) on the pointation of the appellant from outside the northern wall of Government Boys Degree College buried in the ground near a bush and taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PG, it has been observed that at the time of recovery it was stained with blood. The witnesses of recovery Lashkar Ali (PW-3) who is a private and an independent witness and Ghulam Sarwar, Sub Inspector (PW-11) in the evidence furnished by them have fully corroborated each other in material aspects. The said witnesses have no plausible reason to falsely implicate the appellant in the crime and we have no reason to disbelieve their evidence. Although it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that no independent witnesss was associated by the police with the recovery proceedings and, therefore, the same could not be relied upon. We are afraid the argument has no force as both the witnesses are unanimous in their stance that there were no shops or residential houses in the vicinity of the place of recovery of weapon. It was further argued by the learned counsel that Lashkar Ali (PW-3) in his statement has not mentioned that the chhurri was blood stained at the time of recovery and, as such, it was of no avail to the prosecution. We tend to disagree with the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant as the chhurri was dispatched to the Chemical. Examiner for analysis which in its report Ex.PM affirmed that the weapon was stained with blood, Scrapings sent to the Serologist, Government of the Punjab, were found to be stained with human blood which is evident from the report dated 30.7.2002 (Ex.PO). We carry no doubt in our minds that the recovery of weapon of offence from the appellant stands proved at the trial.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the number of injuries suffered by the deceased suggest that the same were caused by more than one person. We are afraid the argument has no force. The witnesses are consistent in their stand about E the injuries being caused by the appellant alone. The deceased in the occurrence suffered 16 incised wounds which lend strength to our view that the appellant has committed murder of the deceased in cold blood sand with vengeance.
13.The learned counsel for the appellant lastly argued that the motive behind the occurrence was not proved at the trial and, therefore, the appellant deserves a lesser sentence. We are afraid this contention is also without any substance as in the first instance the motive has been duly proved by the prosecution and secondly even if the motive is insufficient or is not proved, it does not furnish a mitigating circumstance for awarding a lesser sentence. Reliance is placed on the case of Moazam Shah v. Mohsan Shah & another (PLD 2001 S.C. 458). Even otherwise, motive relates to the state of mind of an accused which can be formed at the spur of the moment.
14. The judgments cited at bar by the learned counsel have been perused by us. The same proceed on facts distinguishable from the facts of the instant case.
15.As a sequel to the above, we Dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant and maintain the sentence of death awarded to him by the learned trial Court.
The murder reference is 'answered in the Affirmative.