ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-This is an appeal against the order of Shah Abdur Rashid, Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi dated 11-2-1967, whereby he convicted Abdur Rahim son of Rahm-ud- Din, caste Pathan, resident of Mohalla Workshopi Rawalpindi city, for the murder of Muhammad Anwar and sentenced him -to transportation for life, under section 302,
2. The motive for the murder is said to be that Muhammad Anwar (deceased) who was a young man of about 26/27 years of age, was suspected by Abdur Rahim accused, of having illicit relations with his wife Mst. Anwar Sultana. She was not living with Muhammad Anwar deceased and had even made a complaint (Exh. P. L.) against him to the Chairman of the relevant Union Committee.
3. The facts of the actual occurrence, briefly stated, are as follows: On 28th October 1965, Said Azam (P. W. 20) gave the hosing 'of his truck No. 6652/PR for repairs to Muhammad Anwar (deceased) who was a mechanic by profession. The hosing required welding and Muhammad Anwar (deceased) therefore, took Said Azam (P. W. 20) to the workshop of Muhammad Amin (P. W. 15), in Sarai Khem Singh for getting, the hosing welded. Muhammad Amin, P. W. Kept the hosing and asked them to take it back latter in the day. Muhammad Anwar (deceased) and Said Azim (P. W.
20) again visited the workshop of Muhammad Amin.(P. W. 15) at about 2-30 p.m. The hosing had been welded by that the. Muhammad Anwar (deceased) took out the hosing and started examining it by bend--ing down, when, suddenly, Abdur Rahim accused came there, armed with his revolver Exh. P. 3 ; and fired three shots in quick succession at Muhammad Anwar (deceased), from a very C1oSe range: Muhammad Amin (P. W. 15) tried to catch hold the accused but in the meanwhile one Muhammad Yunis, who was near accused caught hold of him and took him out of the Sarai. In the meanwhile Muhammad Anwar (deceased), who had been injured took a tonga and reached to the District Headquarters Hospital. The hospital authorities immediately sent a message at Police Station `A' Division, Rawalpindi. In response to this message, Muhammad Asghar, H. C. (P. W. 18) immediately proceeded to the hospital and reached there at about 2-45 p.m. After obtaining a certificate from the doctor as to the fitness of s the injured person to make a statement, he recorded the statement of Muhammad Anwar (deceased) which is (Exh. P. E.).
Muhammad Anwar narrated the entire story, naming Abdur Rahim accused as his assailant. This statement was sent to the Police Station where Hazrab Khan, H. C. (P. W. 21) recorded the formal First Information Report, Exh. P. E/1, on its basis; Muhammad Asghar H. C. P. W. 18, after recording the statement of Muhammad Anwar (deceased), without any loss of the, submitted an application (Exh. P. H.) at 3-30 p.m. To Mr. Muhammad Shafiq, a Magistrate with powers under section 30, for recording the dying declaration of Muhammad Anwar (deceased). The Magistrate forthwith proceeded with to the hospital where Muhammad Anwar was lying in an injured condition. He obtained from Dr. Mehtab Akhtar (P. W.) a certificate of the fitness of Muhammad Anwar to make a statement and then recorded his dying declaration, which Is (Ex6. P. H; 1). Muhammad Anwar also thumb-marked the statement at (Exh. P. H/2) Hazrab Khan H. C. (P. W. 21) also reached the hospital, took over the investigation from Muhammad Asghar H. C. (P. W. 18) and took into possession the dying declaration (Exh. P -H/1). Thereafter, he visited the spot and took into possession the lead portion of a bullet from near the door of the shop of Muhammad Amin, P. W. 15 and sealed it into a parcel, vide memo. (Exh. P. A.). Later on, he also obtained and took into possession the lead portion of a bullet which had been extracted from the body of the deceased.
4. On 7th November 1965, Muhammad Anwar died in the hospital whereupon the offence mentioned in the First Information Report was amended from 307, P. P. C. To 302, P. P. C. Hazrab Khan, H. C. (P. W. 21) went to the hospital, prepared the injury statement and the inquest report and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. During the investigation, revolver bearing No. 5066 (Exh. P. 3), belonging to the accused, as well as his licence (Exh. P. 6), along with the bandolier and some bullets were recovered from the house of the accused, at his instance.
5. Dr. Muhammad Azhar P. W. M. O., performed post--mortem on the dead body of Muhammad Anwar on 8-11-1965. After the completion of the investigation the accused was challaned and committed for trial for an offence under section 302, P. P. C.
6. On reaching the hospital on 28-10-1965, Muhammad Anwar had been medically examined by Dr. Mehtab Akhtar (P. W. 1) who found the following injuries on his person:-
(1) Circular wound with blackening 1/4"x 1/4' on the outer side of left fore-arm.
(2) Circular wound 1/3" x 1/3" on the left fore-arm 3" internal to injury No. 1.
(3) Circular wound 1/4" x 1/4" with blackening on the lower part of outer side of left side of chest.
(4) Circular wound 1/3" x 1/3" on the inner side of right fore--arm above the wrist.
Injuries Nos. 1 and 3 were found to have blackening around them while injury No. 4 had no such blackening. The doctor is of the opinion that injury No. 2 is the exit wound of injury No. 1 and that injury No. 4, if it was an independent wound, had been caused from a longer distance than that from which injuries Nos. 1 and 3 had been caused.
7. Dr. Muhammad Azhar (P. W. 2), who had performed the post-mortem on the body of Muhammad Anwar (deceased), found the following injuries on his person :-
(1) Healed scabbed wound 1/4" in diameter on the outer side of left fore-arm.
(2) Healed scabbed wound 1/4" in diameter on the inner side of injury No. 1, on left fore-arm.
(3) Entrance scabbed wound 1/4th in diameter on the left lower chest.
(4) Healed scabbed wound 1/3" in diameter on the inner side of right fore-arm.
(5) Stitched wound 7" in length on the left paramendian region (Operation wound).
(6) Stitched operation wound I" in length on the right lumber region.
On the internal examination he found all the organs to be healthy. The cavity of the abdomen was full of pus. There was a stitched wound on the stomach as well as on the mesantary. The spleen was missing it had been removed during the operation and the splenic hilar blood vessels were stitched. The cause of death, in the opinion of the doctor, was shock and haemorrhage, 'resulting from injuries to the stomach and mesantary, causing peritonitis. The injuries, which were ante- mortem, had been caused by fire arm and were, in his opinion, sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury No. 3 on the chest of the deceased was found to be in line with the injury on the stomach. The doctor who had operated upon the deceased during his stay in the hospital and had removed the spleen, was not produced by the prosecution. Dr. Muhammad Azhar was, therefore, not able to say as to why it was found necessary to remove the spleen. When asked, during the cross-examination, he replied that the spleen is removed generally when it is injured or diseased and the disease itself requires its removal. In his opinion peritonitis could cause death and when asked if it was possible to cure it or avert death due to it, he replied that peritonitis could be caused even after best possible treatment and that, it could be averted and cured by administering antibiotics and general treatment of the shock. He said that no blood transfusion was given to the deceased in the hospital.
8. The accused, when examined by the Committing Magistrate, answered almost all the questions by saying that he would make a statement in the Court of Sessions. When examined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 9-2-1967, he denied having illicit relations with Mst. Anwar Sultana wife of the deceased and stated that he had no notice of any complaint made by her to the Chairman, Union Committee `K'. He flatly denied having fired at the deceased he admitted that the licensed revolver, Exh. P. 3, belonged to him but denied that it was recovered from his house and explained that he had shifted to the house of his father-in-law, on his asking, and took all his belongings there, including the revolver Exh. P.
3. In answer to the question, "why this case is against you", he stated that :- "I have been made a scape-goat in this case. I was away from my shop at the the of the alleged occurrence. Later on, I learnt that my father-in-law Faiz Muhammad had fired a shot at the deceased with my revolver when the deceased went to meet his daughter, that is, my wife, and the deceased ran away but he was fired at another shot by Faiz Muhammad injuring him. The alleged eye-witnesses axe false witnesses. During the trial of this case, in the Sessions Court, my father--- in-law sent to me the photograph Exh. D. A. Giving me the message that I should produce the same in Court. I am absolutely innocent. My father-in-law has influence with the Police and he has saved his own skin due to that.
9. The prosecution has examined 21 witnesses in all and material evidence consists of,
(i) Ocular testimoney of Muhammad Amin P. W. 15, Muhammad Zaman P. W. 16, Muhammad Rashid P. W. 17 and. Said Azam P. W. 20.
(ii) The to dying declarations made by Muhammad Anwar (deceased) which are Exhs. P. E. And P.
H/l, recorded .By Muhammad Asghar, H. C. P. W, 18 and Muhammad Shafiq, Magistrate Section 30 P.
W. 14 respectively.
(i.e) The evidence of motive coupled with the complaint Exh. P. L. Made by Mst. Anwar Sultana, the wife of the appellant to the Chairman Union Committee `K' on 23-10-1965.
(iv) The recoveries of revolver Exh. P. 3 and to parts of lead bullets, one from near the door of the shop of Muhammad Amin P. W. 15 and the other from the body of the deceased, coupled with the report of the lire-arms expert that the crime bullets mentioned above had been fired from revolver P. 3.
(v) The medical evidence as given by Dr. Mehtab Akhtar (P. W. 1) and Dr. Muhammad Azhar (P. W.
2).
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and have also heard the learned State counsel in reply.
11. As already observed, there are to dying declarations in this case. One is Exh. P. E./1 which was recorded by Muhammad Asghar H. C. P. W. 18, shortly after reaching the hospital arid the other is Exh. P. H./1 which was recorded by Mr. Muhammad Shafiq, Section 30 Magistrate.
The later statement (Exh. P. BA), when translated into English, reads as follows :- "I am a motor mechanic and my workshop is in Sarai Qayyum. I repair Rocket vehicles. I had given the hosing of a vehicle for welding to Muhammad Amin in Sarai Khem Singh Rawalpindi. I went to take the delivery of the same from the shop of the above-mentioned Muhammad Amin, alongwith the owner of the Rocket. When I reached the said shop, Abdur Rahim accused, came after me armed with a revolver, and suddenly fired three shots at me which hit me in my abdomen and my arms. Three or four months ago some-one had told Abdur Rahim that I had illicit relations with his wife Mst. Anwar Sultana. For this reason, he was intent on murdering me and was endeavouring to achieve this object. For this very reason he had come after me with a revolver and fired three shots (at me) in order to kill me. Muhammad Amin shop-keeper was present there and the owner of the `Rocket truck' was also present there. I do not know the name of the owner of the truck. Both of them saw the occurrence with their own eyes. Other people were also present there. Amongst there was one who deals in tyres and is the son-in-lave of Akbar Khan. He had caught the accused and had taken him to one side."
13. This statement was made in the presence of Dr. Mehtab Akhtar P. W. 1 who had examined the injured person and certified him to be in a fit condition to make a statement. In token of this, he had made the following note on the dying declaration :- "Certified that patient was capable of making statement and remained in sense during the the the statement was made "Sd-Mehtab Akhtar, 28-10-65."
14. The learned counsel for the appellant has attacked the first dying declaration, Exh. P. E. On the ground that Muhammad Anwar's statement P. E. Was not actually made by the deceased because he stated in his later statement Exh. P. H./1 that he did not know the name of the owner of the truck, but his name is mentioned in Exh. P. E. Which is alleged to have been made by him earlier. The learned trial Court has considered this objection in paragraph 18 of his judgment and has rightly excluded this dying declaration (Exh. P. E), for consideration. However, no such attack could be made against the second dying declaration (Exh. P. H./1). Muhammad Asghar, P. W. 18 had lost no the in making an application to Mr. Muhammad Shafi, Magistrate with power under section 30 for the recording of the statement. The learned Magistrate immediately reached the hospital by a Taxi, and, after obtaining the fitness certificate from the doctor, recorded the dying declare--tion without any delay. This dying declaration has already been reproduced above. It will be noticed that the deceased has given the motive in very clear words and has mentioned that the owner of the truck, whose name he did not know; was one of the persons who had seen the occurrence. It is, therefore, clear that he had no relations with the owner of the truck and could not, therefore, have had any reason to believe that Said Azam (the owner of the truck) would support his (deceased's) version. Said Azam P. W. 20, who is an absolutely impartial and indepen--dent person, has fully supported the version given by the deceased. It was a day the occurrence. Muhammad Anwar deceased could surely see his assailant. He has named only Abdur Rahim, appellant and there is no reason why he should have involved him if the real assailant was some-one else. The dying declare--tion has a ring of truth about it and conviction could safely be based on this statement alone. However, it is corroborated by the evidence of Muhammad Amin. P. W. 15 and Said Azam P.
W. 20, the medical evidence and the opinion of the fire-arm expert.
15. The learned counsel for the appellant has attacked the veracity of the eye-witnesses, urging that the occurrence had not taken place at the alleged spot and the witnesses had not seen it. He based his argument on the fact that no blood was recovered from the place of occurrence. He has also pointed out that the conduct of the eye-witnesses was very unnatural, inasmuch as that they neither apprehended the accused nor informed the police nor did they help Muhammad Anwar after he was injured and not accompany him to the hospital. He has also pointed out certain discrepancies in their evidence.
16. We have gone through the evidence of the four eye--witnesses. The learned trial Court has not relied on the evidence of Muhammad Zaman (P. W. 16) and Muhammad Rashid (P. W. 17) nor has the learned State Counsel laid any stress on their evidence. Both of them are chance witnesses of a nature whose evidence can be safely ignored. The remaining to eye--witnesses however, are natural and independent witnesses. The occurrence took place at the shop of Muhammad Amin P.
W. 1.5 and his name is also mentioned in the dying declaration Exh. P. H./l. He has no enmity against the appellant, No enmity has even been suggested during the cross-examination. He had, therefore, no reason to falsely implicate Abdur Rahim, appellant if he was not the assailant. With regard to Said Azam (P. W. 20), the learned trial Court, who had the opportunity of noticing his demeanour in Court, has stated in paragraph 16 of his judgment.
"Said Azam P. W. 2 has very favourably impressed me when he appeared as a witness in this Court."
Although he was not known to the deceased, as is clear from the fact that. The deceased did not even know his name, he has fully supported the version given by the deceased and has supported the prosecution story in all its detail. He is an entirely indepen--dent and impartial person. No suggestion was made to him to show that he had any enmity with the accused and had, therefore a motive to involve him in a false case of such a serious nature. Both these eye-witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examina--tion but no material discrepancies have been brought out in their evidence. They being independent persons, having nothing to do with either party, there is no reason to disbelieve their testimony.
17. As for their conduct, to which objection has been taken by the learned counsel for the appellant, it must be pointed out that the occurrence took place in a split second, before the witnesses had any opportunity of realizing what had happened. Muhammad Yasin who was apparently a friend of the accused, helped him to get away. Again, before they (i.e. P. Ws.) could do anything to help Muhammad Anwar, he availed of a tonga and rushed to the Police Station. As already observed, these to witnesses had nothing to do with the deceased or the accused and the general tendency is not to involve one-self to deeply in such matters. The lack of action, therefore, on their part is not enough to discredit their evidence. In fact it goes to show that they were disinterested persons. The discrepancies in their evidence pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are only of minor nature, and not sufficient to render their evidence unworthy of reliance. In view of the above- mentioned reasons we hold that Muhammad Amin P. W. 15 and Said Azam P. W. 20 are trustworthy and truthful witnesses, and the learned trial Court rightly relied on their evidence.
18. As already observed, the incident took place in a very shot span of the. Muhammad Anwar had been hit on the fore-arm and in the chest. The injury on the chest is such that only internal bleeding is likely to have taken place. This being a serious injury, it is obvious that Muhammad Anwar -must have clasped his chest or placed his hands over this injury. Therefore, it is very likely that the blood from his fore-arm fell only on his own clothes. The mere fact, therefore, that blood was not found on the spot by, the Investigating Officer cannot necessarily be a proof of the fact that the incident had not taken place there, specially when a piece of lead from a bullet was later found by the fire-arms expert to have been fired from revolver Exh. P. 3, belonging to Abdur Rahim appellant.
19. The evidence with regard to the recovery of revolver Exh. P. 3 has been proved by the prosecution through Bashir Ahmad (P. W. 10), Muhammad Ali (P. W. 11) and Raja Sultan Mahmud, Sub-Inspector (P. W. 13). But the appellant has himself admitted that the revolver belongs to him.
This revolver, along with to lead bullets, one recovered from the spot and the other from the body of the deceased, were sent to the Examiner of Fire-Arms Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore, and the Fire-- Arms Expert Sh. Muhammad Din (P. W. 19) found that the to lead pieces from the crime bullets, mentioned above had been fired through the revolver belonging to the accused. This also corroborates the dying declaration Exh. P. H./1.
20. The motive has been sufficiently proved by the deceased himself in his dying declaration (Exh.
P. H./1). His statement coupled with a photograph Exh. D. A., which shows the deceased with his arms around Mst. Anwar Sultana, fully establishes the motive. (The fact that the girl in the photograph is the wife of the accused-appellant has been stated by a number of witnesses, including Muhammad Iqbal (P. W. 12), Ex-Secretary, Union Committee `K', before whom she had presented the complaint Exh. P. L).
21. This brings us to the last contention of the learned defence counsel. The spleen had been removed from the body of the deceased in the hospital, during an operation performed by Dr. Ali Jawad Hussain. This doctor has not been produced by the prosecution with the result that; the reason for removal of the spleen has not been brought on the record. Dr. Muhammad Azhar (P. W.
2) has stated, during his cross-examination :- "that spleen is removed generally when it is injured, or diseased and the disease itself required removal."
The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since the doctor who operated upon him has not been produced by the prosecution, it cannot be said with certainty if the spleen of Muhammad Anwar was not so diseased as to require its removal and that the death may in fact, have been caused by its removal. This argument does not have much force, as doctor Muhammad Azhar (P. W. 1) has clearly stated that the cause of the death in this case was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from injuries to the stomach and mesantary, causing peritonitis. He has stated further that the injuries were ante-mortem and were caused by a fire-arm and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
22. It is, therefore, clear that according to the doctor who performed the post-mortem, the death was not caused as a result of removal of the spleen but was due to the fire-.Arm injury which caused shock and haemorrhage as well as peritonitis and that the said injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
23. The learned counsel for the appellant also urged that death had been caused by peritonitis which had supervened and that if the deceased had been given proper treatment he would not have died. Therefore, according to him, the offence falls not under section 302, P. P. C: but under section 326, P. P. C. In support of this contention he has relied on Gujjan Singh v. Emperor (AIR 1931 Lah. 103), Sobhan and anther v. Emperor (AIR 1935 Oudh 44,) and Said Amin v. The State (PLD 1959 Lah. 451).
24. In AIR 1931 Lah. 103, the accused had given only one Takwa blow on the head of the deceased and took no further advantage of the fact that the latter had fallen down. According to the medical evidence the injury in itself, could not be called dangerous to life and it was more probable that a man would normally survive from such an injury. The deceased died of ceptocaemia long after the wound was inflicted: ~ It was held that the offence fall under section 326, P. P. C. And was neither murder nor culpable homicide.
25. In AIR 1935 Oudh 446, only one lathi blow had been given by the accused on the head of the deceased. The injury was simple and was not such as would ordinarily have resulted in death. It was found that the accused had no intention of causing death or such bodily injury as he knew to be a likely to cause death. The immediate cause of death was septic meningitis caused by negligent treatment. It was held that the offence fell under section 325 and not under section 324, P. P. C.
26. In Said Amin's case the deceased Mushtaq Hussain was given to stab wounds in his abdomen by the accused with a knife. The deceased was admitted in Mayo Hospital after the occurrence.
According to the Medical evidence the wounds were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The death, was; however not due to the wounds but had resulted from haemolysis, following blood transfusion, given as a part of the treatment. It was held that since this complication' (haemolysis) was not the direct or even the proximate result of the injury, section 299 of the Penal Code had no application and the ap--pellant could not be held guilty of the offence of murder. The conviction under section 302. P.P.C. Was altered to one under s.: tion 307, P. P. C.
27. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has relied upon Fazla and others v.
Emperor (A 1 R 1928 Lah. 851), Ghulam Hussain and another v. The State (PLD 1966 Pesh. 255), Lai Singh and others v. Emperor (AIR 1938 Lah 31) and Murad v. The State (PLD 1957 Lah. 332).
28. In Fazla and another v. The Emperor the accused made a murderous attack upon the deceased and inflicted more, than thirteen injuries on him, which resulted in the fracture of a number of his ribs. Pneumonia intervened and, according to the doctor who performed the post-mortem examination, the deceased died of multiple injuries and pneumonia which was incidental to the injuries. It was held that if a person received grievous injuries and as a result that those injuries pneumonia supervenes the victim dies then, the offence falls under section 302, P. P. C.
29. In Lai Singh and others v. The Emperor Achhar Singh (deceased) was attacked by the accused.
According to the medical evidence no less than fourteen injuries, including eight incised wounds were found on his person. Both his legs were badly smashed. He died after a few days. The immediate cause of his death was found to be gangrene, which had set in as a result of the above-mentioned injuries inflicted by the accused. The accused was held to be guilty of an offence under section 302, Penal Code.
30. In Murad v. The State the accused had wounded the deceased by pistol shot causing injuries to left lung, pleura, stomach and the spleen. The spleen had to be removed by the surgeon. The death was ascribable to shock and haemorrhage which resulted from the injuries as well as from the removal of the spleen. It was held that if a person, who intends to cause death, brings into existence circumstances which in the normal course of events would result in death, and death in fact results that person is guilty of an offence under section 302, P. P. C. And not-under section 326, P. P. C.
31. In Ghulam Hussain and another v. The State the accused gave dagger blows in the abdomen of the deceased. Two injuries were found by the doctor to be dangerous to life. Murid Sultan had a severe attack of diarrhoea which affected the accused arid he ultimately died. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to anemia and shock as - a result of plastic peritonitis, which had resulted, from injury No. 2. According to the doctor this injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The offence was held to be under section 302, P. P. C.
32. The principle underlying such cases has been explained in Said Amin v. The State, as follows :- "The language of section 299, Penal Code indicates that the offence of culpable homicide can be committed only if death is caused by the doing of an at with the requisite intention or knowledge. If death is not caused by such an at, but some--thing else intervenes between the doing of the at and the death of the person concerned, the offender would not be guilty of the offence of culpable homicide, but he might be guilty of some other offence. Each case, for its decision, depends upon its own facts. If death of a person is the direct result of an at committed by another person, with the requisite intention or knowledge, or if as a result of that at something else inter--venes, such as gangrene, tatanus, peritonitis etc. Which is the direct result of that injury, the offender would be guilty of the offence of culpable homicide. If, however, something intervenes and the death of the injured man is not the direct result of the injury, it cannot be said that death had resulted from the ding of the at which caused the injury and therefore, section 299 of the Pakistan Penal Code will have no application."
33. In the present case the evidence on the record clearly indicates that the accused appellant had a motive to kill the deceased. He had fired at him with a revolver from a very close range; and had hit him on the chest, which is vital part of the body. Therefore, the intention to kill the deceased is more than obvious. Further, the injuries were found by Doctor Muhammad Azhar P. W. To be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He has stated during his cross- examination that the course of the bullet which hit the decease, in the chest was in line with the injury on the stomach. It is, therefore, obvious that this bullet; after piercing the chest, went through the peritonium and the stomach and was also responsible for any injury to the spleen. A photograph of the deceased Exh. D. .A. Is on the record. The photograph will show that Muhammad Anwar (deceased) was a young man having very good health. His healthy appearance is enough proof of the fact that he could not possibly have had an unhealthy spleen which was diseased to an extent, that it required removal. It would, therefore, be not a conjecture to conclude that the bullet which injured the stomach of the deceased also injured the spleen, thus necessitating its removal. The mere fact that paritonitis had intervened is, therefore, not sufficient to convert the offence from one under section 302, P. P. C. To one under section 306, P. P. C. Because the removal of the spleen and the intervention of Paritonitis in the present case was clearly a direct result of the injuries caused by the appellant to the deceased.
34. In view of the above mentioned circumstances, we find' that the learned trial Court was justified in holding that the offence committed by the accused-appellant fell under section 302, P.P.C.
35. Further, in view of the motive which impelled the appellant to commit the crime, the learned trial Judge was also justified in awarding to him the lesser penalty of life. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with his judgment.
35. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal.