' RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, J.---Petitioner Juma son of Banna was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Rahim Yar Khan in case F.I.R. No,459 dated 19-11-2000 registered with Police Station Liaquat Pur District Rahim Yar Khan under sections 302/337-A(i-ii)/380/411/34, P.P.C. For having allegedly committed qatl-e-amd of his grandmother namely Mst. Ganwar Mai and causing injuries to the complainant namely Muhammad Afzal. After conclusion of the trial and hearing the parties vide judgment dated 24-4-2003 passed in Sessions Case No,10 of 2002 (Sessions Trial No,4 of 2002, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as follows:-- "(i) Under section 302(b), P.P.C. Death sentence as Ta'zir along with a fine of Rs,100,000 to be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Ganwar Mai.
(ii) Under section 324, P.P.C. 10 years RI along with a fine of Rs,10,000 or one year SI in case of default in payment of fine.
(iii) Under section 337-A (ii), P.P.C. Five years RI as Ta'zir and Arsh which shall be 5% of the Diyat.
(iv) Under section 337-A(i), P.P.C. Two years RI as Ta'zir and also liable to pay Daman of Rs,10,000."
2. Record and papers of the case were forwarded by the learned Sessions Judge, hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court' to the learned High Court within the meaning of section 374, Cr.P.C. For confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the appellant, registered as Murder Reference No,19 of 2003, whereas; the appellant challenged his convictions and sentences through Criminal Appeal No,106-J of 2003 before the learned High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur. The Criminal Appeal has been dismissed and the Murder Reference answered in affirmative vide impugned judgment.
3. F.I.R. No,459 Exh-PL/1 was registered on the basis of the statement of the complainant namely Muhammad Afzal Exh-PL. The case of the prosecution as disclosed in the F.I.R. Has been recapitulated in paragraph No,1 of the impugned judgment, reproduced herein below for the sake of convenience:-- "The above said criminal case was got registered by Muhammad Afzal, complainant, for an occurrence in which the appellant-convict allegedly committed murder of his grandmother, namely Mst. Ganwar Mai, injured the complainant and while leaving the place of occurrence also committed theft 10/12 goats belonging to the complainant. The ocular account of the occurrence and motive behind the occurrence given by the complainant to the police for the purpose of registration of the F.I.R., in brief was that the house where he resided along with his grandmother Mst. Ganwar Mai deceased consisted of one room and a `chhappar' The father of the complainant had passed away some two years ago. His father had divorced his mother for the reason that she had established illicit relations with his brother Ghulam Farid who had also once abducted her in his lifetime. His mother thereafter married his aforesaid uncle Ghulam Farid. After the death of father of the complainant, his mother Mst. Naziran and her husband Ghulam Farid along with their children shifted to the house where the complainant had been residing with his grandmother. The convict-appellant, Jumma, who was related to his mother had been visiting his house to which his grandmother disapproved and also asked his mother to ask the convict appellant to stop visiting their house. About the alleged occurrence it was stated by the complainant that on the fateful day he along with his grandmother was present at home while his mother and uncle Ghulam Farid along with their children had gone to Basti Rahim two days earlier where his maternal grandmother resided. At evening when he came back to home after grazing his goats he found the convict-appellant, Jumma, present in his house. He went to play billiard and on coming back to home at 11.00 p.m. Went to sleep in his room. At that time his grandmother and the convict- appellant were sleeping in the adjacent chhappar). At mid-night feeling some movements in the surrounding made him awake. He peeped through a hole present in the wall in between his room and the `chhappar' and witnessed the convict-appellant inflicting `tokki' (a sharp-edge chopper type weapon) below to his grandmother. He tried to come out of his room but could not succeed as it was bolted from outside. After committing the murder of his grandmother the convict- appellant approached his room and assaulted on him by 'toki' . On receiving injuries at the hands of the convict-appellant, he fell down and became unconscious. In the morning when he gained senses he again found the door closed from outside. He was able to come out of the room after uprooting the bricks of the window. He saw his grandmother lying dead while smeared with blood.
He also noticed that his goats were missing. He raised hue and cry on which the P.Ws., namely Muhammad Din, Rasool Bakhsh and other neighbours gathered at the place of occurrence. They immediately shifted him to Civil Hospital where he got his statement recorded with the police which was followed by the registration of the formal F.I.R. As regards the motive, the complainant stated that his deceased grandmother had been criticizing his mother for her bad previous character and asked her to stop the convict-appellant, Jumma from visiting their house."
' The motive of the crime was disclosed by the complainant (P.W.10) in his statement made to the police officer that his deceased grandmother had been criticizing his mother for her previous bad character, who asked her to stop appellant Juma from visiting their house.
4. The appellant was indicted in view of the accusation, as contained in the F.I.R. And the incriminating material produced with the report filed under section 173, Cr.P.C. To which he did not plead guilty. The prosecution in order to substantiate the accusation produced (13) witnesses. After close of prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P,C. In the light of the incriminating pieces of evidence which he denied and disputed. In response to the question as to why this case against him and why the P.Ws. Deposed against him, he took the plea by giving the following answer:- "I am innocent. I have been involved in the occurrence on the basis of suspicion and on account of previous enmity with the complainant party. P.Ws., who are inter se related and also closely related with the deceased have falsely deposed against him."
He did not produce any evidence in defence nor appeared as his own witness in defence within the meaning of section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant, as well as the learned DPG for the State have been heard at length in the light of impugned judgment and the record, gone through carefully with their assistance.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the circumstances of the case, the complainant being the solitary prosecution witness required independent corroboration, as no implicit reliance for the purpose of the conviction could be placed on his testimony. According to the learned counsel, the version of the complainant appeared to be not true rather; seemed to be manipulated and the medical evidence falsified the prosecution story. He, however, argued that the injuries suffered by the complainant could not be believed to have been caused to him in a standing position as narrated by him at the trial, moreover; according to him on account of decomposition and disintegration of human blood on the weapon of offence allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant was not determinable, hence; recovery of the weapon was worthless. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel in the case of Ansar Ahmed Khan Bark v. The State and another (1993 SCM R 1660).
7. On the other hand, the learned DPG controverting the contentions put forth on behalf of the appellant argued that the testimony of the complainant being solitary witness in the case was of unimpeachable character who remained consistent during the course of cross-examination, which also in the given circumstances of the case is in line with the prosecution story, as well as; straightforward and convincing. Medical evidence rendered due corroboration to the version of the complainant, as well as; weapon of offence i,e, tokki, recovered at the instance of the accused, as per report of Serologist was stained with human blood and; also the stolen sheeps were recovered.
There was no or motive on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the accused with the commission of the crime.
8. Post mortem of deceased Mst. Ganwar Mai was conducted by Dr. Mussarat Parveen (P.W.7) and she found the following injuries on the dead body:-- "(1) An incised wound 9 cm x 3 cm on right cheek extending to the lobe of right ear under line muscles were cut.
(2) An incised wound 6 cm x 3 cm on right side of neck below the mendable under lying soft tissues, muscles, blood vessels were cut.
(3) There was swelling 4 cm on right temporal region of the skull, fracture of right temporal bone, subcutaneous haemorrhage and ecchyimosi present, subdural hemotoma which was pressing the right side of brain."
' As a result of autopsy, she in her post mortem report opined that Injuries Nos.2 and 3 resulted into excessive haemorrhage and fracture of skull caused by sharp edged weapon, which in the ordinary course of nature were sufficient to cause death of the deceased. The probable time between injuries and death was stated to be 5/10 minutes and between death and post-mortem 48 hours.
9. The complainant was medically examined by Dr. Mansoorul Hadi, (PW-1) and he noted the following injuries on his person:-- "(1) An incised wound 6.5 cm x 2 cm, bone exposed on middle of forehead.
(2) An incised wound measuring 6.5 cm x 1.5 cm, muscle deep on left side of cheek.
(3) An incised wound 6 cm x 1.5 cm, bone exposed on chin extended to left cheek.
(4) An incised wound measuring 6 cm x 2 cm on right side of head just above the right ear pinna, wound is done exposed.
(5) An incised wound 6 cm x 2 cm, bone exposed in front of right ear on the area of right temporomandibular region on right side of face.
(6) An incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm, muscle deep on right cheek extended upto the right nostral.
(7) An incised wound 10 cm x 2 cm, bone exposed oblique indirection on ante posterior surface of lower 1/3 or gith forearm, muscles were cut, tendon of exterior muscles was cut.
(8) Two incised wounds parallel to each other 6.5 cm x 5.5 cm x 2 cm, bone exposed on dorsal of left lower 1/3 forearm on left wrist joint."
' The injuries Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 were declared as Shajjahimudihah, while injuries Nos.2 to 6 were declared Shajjah-i-Khafifa, caused by sharp-edged weapon out of which, according to themedical officer, injuries Nos.7 and 8 were kept under observation.
10. In so far as the medical evidence referred to above is concerned, the same is inline with the ocular account given by the complainant in his testimony at the trial and as contained in his statement Exh-PL made to the police officer with some minor variations, having no substantial bearing on the intrinsic value of the evidence of the complainant; appropriately dealt with in the impugned judgment by the learned High Court. The learned High Court has rightly concluded that possibility of self-infliction by the complainant on his person was out of question and that there was nothing unnatural in the evidence of the complainant to disbelieve him that he was present and asleep in the room adjacent to the Chappar in which the main occurrence had taken place.
There could not be a reason to believe or conceive that the deceased lady was being subjected to murderous assault with a sharp edged weapon would not have screamed or cried during the course of infliction of the injuries in the ordinary course, which awakened the complainant who attended to the situation, therefore, the version of the complainant as to the events could be safely believed that he peeped through and witnessed the occurrence in which Mst. Ganwar Mai was killed by the appellant, as well as; being the grandson of the deceased lady his presence in the room was quite natural and reasonable. The motive part of the prosecution story was also duly substantiated by P.W.1. It was also quite reasonable and convincing on the part of the deceased lady to have asked or snubbed her daughter-in-law to stop the appellant from visiting to their house. The ocular account finds due support from the medical evidence, which though not required to be corroborated by other pieces of substantial evidence, yet, the recoveries do lend further support to prosecution story.
11. Complainant Muhammad Afzal (PW-10) suffered 7 incised wounds on different parts of his body reproduced supra proved by Dr. Mansoorul Hadi (PW-1), who was also subjected to cross- examination but his version could not be impeached or discredited, which conforms to the version of the complainant. The complainant in cross-examination stated that Juma accused entered into his room holding Tokki in his hand inflicted Tokki blows on his face, right hand and on receiving the injuries, he fell down and had become unconscious, thus; in this position, it appears that further injuries were caused by means of Tokki on the person of the complainant, therefore, it could not be said that all the injuries were suffered by the complainant in standing position and the contention raised in such behalf by the learned counsel for the appellant, seems to be without any substance.
Dr. Mussarat Parveen (PW-7) proved the post mortem report and she was also cross-examined by the defence. The deceased lady, as per medical evidence referred to hereinabove suffered incised wounds caused by sharp edged weapon, out of which Injuries Nos.2 and 3 were sufficient to cause her death in the ordinary course of nature corroborates to the version of the complainant, who in our considered opinion had given straightforward account of the incident as witnessed by him, as well as; convincing. The occurrence had taken place inside the house and the complainant was injured by the appellant in his own room and in such circumstances of the case looking for an A independent person to further corroborate the testimony of the complainant seems to be uncalled for, particularly for the reason that during the odd hours of the night the incident had taken place in which also the appellant being the cousin of the deceased Mst. Ganwar Mai was sleeping. The complainant was subjected to lengthy and searching cross-examination, which in no way improved the defence nor did it reflect any substantial major contradiction or improvement so as to result in varying the decision rendered by the trial Court and maintained vide impugned judgment by the High Court. Also, there appears to be no reason or motive on the part of the complainant to have falsely implicated the appellant in the commission of the crime and his testimony supported by the medical evidence is capable of implicit reliance in the circumstances of the case not suffering from any major or substantial discrepancy carrying an adverse effect on the findings of guilt of the appellant even in absence of the recoveries. The report of Serologist was tendered in evidence without any objection by the defence and in any case the expert could have been called for by the trial Court on the request of the appellant to be questioned with regard to the determination of blood stains found by the expert on the weapon of offence but no such request was made on behalf of the defence before the trial Court, hence; it could not be assumed that the Tokki was not stained with human blood in presence of positive report of the Serologist.
The recoveries were proved through P. Ws. 3 and 11, which also could not be impeached through the process of cross-examination by the defence. The ocular B account of the incident given by the complainant, as well as; his presence in the adjoining room was quite natural and in line with the prosecution story, hence was appropriately believed by both the learned Courts for finding him guilty on the capital charge. The entire evidence has been, scanned and reappraised by the learned High Court in its true perspective. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel on the reported judgment of this Court i,e, Ansar Ahmed Khan Barki (Supra) which in no way could carve in any help to the case of the appellant for the simple reason that he while examined by the trial Court under section 342, Cr.P.C. Pleaded his false involvement in the case on the basis of suspicion and on account of previous enmity with the complainant party but did not produce any defence in support of such plea nor himself appeared in the witness box.
12. Thus; for the foregoing discussion and reasons, this Criminal lc Appeal having no merit is dismissed.