ASLAM RIAZ HUSAIN, J.-Manzur Ahmad, petitioner, a student of 1st Year in the Government Islamia Degree College, Khanewal was convicted for the murder of Muhammad Ramzan, a. Student of 2nd Year of the same College, and was sentenced, inter alia, to imprisonment for life. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 7-10-1978. Hence the present petition.
2. The murder was committed in the college premises. The facts of the case briefly are that on 16- 11-73, the day on which the elections to the College Union were to be held, the petitioner inflicted 3 knife blows to Muhammad Ramzan, as a result of which he fell down on the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Ashraf Lateefi, P. W. 7 a lecturer of the College, Ch. Mukhtar Bahadur, P. W. 8, Principal of the College and Muhammad Yaqub, P. W. 9, Director, Physical Education who were present in the College.
3. Manzur, petitioner, was apprehended at the spot by Muhammad Yaqub, P. W. 9 and Subhan Khan, Head Clerk and his knife P-7 was taken into possession. On enquiry by the Principal, Ramzan, deceased, who was still able to speak, told him that about 20/25 days ago, he had given few fist blows to the petitioner. Moreover, enmity existed between their families and it was for this reason that the petitioner has inflicted knife blows on him with a view to kill him.
4. Muhammad Ramzan, who had been badly injured was sent to the Civil Hospital in the company of Mr. Ashraf Latifee, P. W.
7. The Principal informed the police of the incident through a report (Exh.
P/G) on receiving which Abdul Rashid S. I. (P. W. 11) immediately reached the College. He arrested the petitioner, took his blood-stained knife P. 7 into possession which was handed over to him by Muhammad Yaqub, P. W.
9. The shirt and Shalwar P. 1 (blood-stained) of the accused, petitioner were also got removed and taken into possession Some blood-stained earth was also taken into possession, from the spot. Muhammad Ramzan succumbed to his injuries. TI-e post-mortem report revealed the following injuries:
(1) a .Stale wound, 1" x 3/4' going inside the lower part of chest and under hart of abdomen in the 7th right inter-coastal space;
(2) a stab wound 2' x 1' going into the vertebral column at the level of 8th thoracic vertebra;
(3) a cut 1' x 1/4' x 1/4' cleft between right index and middle finger cut depth 1/4.
4. At the trial the prosecution relied on the ocular testimony of the afore-mentioned eye-witnesses and the recoveries the apprehension of the accused at the spot and recovery of blood-stained knife P.7, the motive and the medical evidence. When examined at the trial the accused/petitioner admitted the occurrence, but gave the following version:- "I and the deceased were the residents of the same Chak. 15 or 20 days before the occurrence, the deceased asked me that since I belong to a poor family, I should not contest elections, and I should cast vote in his favour, and if I did not do that, he would be labour me and kill me. 1 told him that I was not a supporter of any particular party, and I would cast vote according to my own wishes. The deceased was offended by my reply, and he beat me. In view of the fear of the deceased, I did not contest elections. On the day of occurrence, when I was present in the compound of the College and was moving towards the Office of the Principal, the deceased met me, He again asked me to cast my vote in his favour. I did not agree. I told him that I would cast my vote as I wished. The deceased started abusing me in the presence of a large number of students, who were present there. I also abused the deceased in return. The deceased whipped out a dagger and attacked me with it. I was carrying a pen knife in my pocket. 1 took it out in self defence. A scuffle ensued between us. During the grappling both of us fell down on the ground. I do not know how the deceased received injuries whether with his own dagger or with my knife. The Principal and other members of the teaching staff were not present at the spot at that time. They might have been present in their offices. They came to the spot after the occurrence."
The learned Courts below preferred the prosecution version and convicted the petitioner.
5. The main ground urged before us by the petitioner's was that the learned Judge in Chamber has wrongly rejected the defence version which is supported by the medical evidence and therefore, evidence on the record needs re-appraisal. He has, however, not been able to show any defect in the impugned judgment nor has he been able to point out any misreading of the evidence by the learned Single Judge in chamber.
6. It was admittedly a day time occurrence which was seen by a number of people including the staff and the students who were present there. The Principal of the College and other eye- witnesses who are responsible persons, had no reason to perjure themselves and involve the accused petitioner by giving an incorrect version. The petitioner did not produce single witness from amongst the numerous students who were person at the spot in support of his version. Nor did he sustain the slightest injury during the incident, which belies the version given by him. The dimension of the injuries found on the deceased also belie the petitioner who has stated in the defence version that he had caused three injuries with a pen knife which he was carrying. The injuries have evidently been caused by a much bigger knife like the one snatched from him immediately after the incident.
7. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned High Court was justified in upholding petitioner's conviction.
8. The learned counsel also submitted at the end that after this occurrence three persons of the family of the accused namely his father and his maternal and paternal uncles have been murdered by the relatives of the deceased in reprisal, but now the parties have compromised and as a consequence of the compromise, the relatives of the deceased have withdrawn petition (Cr. P.
S. L. A. 504 of 1978) relating to one of those murders, which had been filed in this Court. This fact is borne out from the order dated 2-7-1980 in the aforementioned petition for leave whereby the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Mr. Wajid Husain the learned A. O. R. In that case has also affirmed that his clients (who are relatives of the present petitioner) had instructed him to withdraw that petition as the parties had compromised.
9. We feel that this petition has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed. But in view of the compromise between the parties, we would like to observe that the relevant authorities may take into consideration the period spent in jail by the accused as under trial prisoner from the date of his arrest up till the data of announcement of sentence of imprisonment for life, against him in the light of the recent amendment in section 382-B of the Cr. P. C. In making this observation we are respectfully following a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as Ali Sher v. State and 3 others (PLD 1980SC317).