' KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.--Through this single judgment we propose to decide Criminal Appeal No,134 of 2009 filed by appellant/accused Subedar alias Sooba son of Noor Muhammad against his conviction passed by learned Sessions Judge, D.I.Khan dated 19-9-2007 vide which he has been convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced him for life imprisonment with fine of Rs,30,000 which is to be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. In default of payment of fine he was further ordered to undergo six months imprisonment.
However, benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to the appellant/accused.
2. Mst. Hafeez Bibi alias Saeeda Bibi has filed Criminal Revision No,26 of 2007 for enhancing the sentence of appellant/ accused from life imprisonment to normal penalty of death and also for increasing the compensation amount. The above criminal appeal and revision are arising out of the same judgment/order passed by the learned trial Court, therefore are taken together for decision, through this single judgment.
3. Precisely facts, according to the F.I.R. Are that on 5-7-2006, complainant Muhammad Anwar reported the matter to the local police of police station, Parao to the effect that his nephew Nazir Ahmad had contracted marriage with Saeeda Bibi daughter of Soba, caste Kuttana and used to reside within a one house. Accused Soba was bent upon quarrelling that his daughter Saeeda Bibi should reside in his house but she did not agree, however, after that she went to her parent's house.
After that complainant was brought back to the house of deceased. On the night of occurrence Soba came to the house of complainant and stayed for the night all of them including Soba went to sleep as usual in the courtyard. The complainant got open by Saeeda Bibi and told him that her father namely Soba had killed Nazir Ahmad got up abruptly and went towards his nephew Nazir Ahmad who was lying dead in the pool of blood whereas Soba decamped from the spot. The villagers also attracted on the spot upon the shrieks of complainant party at odd hours night and the complainant could not approach to the police station due to non-availability of vehicles at night. Motive for the occurrence as described in the F.I.R. That accused wanted to get his daughter reside in his house but she was not willing to do so, hence F.I.R. No,208 dated 5-7-2006 registered under section 302, P.P.C. At Police Station, Paroa District D.I. Khan.
4. Challan against the appellant/ accused was filed before the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court took cognizance of the case. Appellant/accused refused to plead guilty in response to the charge framed against him; therefore prosecution was directed to record its evidence to prove guilt of the appellant/ accused.
5. The prosecution examined ten witnesses during trial against the appellant/ accused and then closed its evidence. Where after statement of appellant/accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Appellant/accused denied to have committed any offence, however, did not produce evidence in his defence and also declined to be examined on Oath under section 340(2), Cr .P. C .
6. The learned trial Court after hearing arguments of both sides convicted the appellant/appellant and sentenced him as per detail given in first Para of this judgment.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/ accused argued that the occurrence had taken place at 3-00 hours and the report has been lodged at 6-30 hours with unexplained delay of 3-1/2 hours. He contended that the recovered articles blood-stained earth, clothes, dagger (Churri) etc. Were sent to the FSL after two days of the recovery. He submitted that medical evidence contradicts the ocular version. He urged that P.W.7 had stated in her cross-examination that total three blows were given by the accused to the deceased. He further argued that the conviction has been based on solitary witness and the death of other eyewitness/complainant has not been proved. He also contended that confessional statement does not corroborate the version of prosecution.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant/respondent argued that appellant/accused has been charged by his real daughter and her statement is natural, confidence-inspiring and nothing has been brought on the record to contradict her statement. He contended that the statement of P.W.7 is corroborated by the statement of P.W.8 namely Mst. Dano Mai He further submitted that the FSL, report is in positive, the blood-stained earth, clothes and dagger (Churri) were found of human blood and having the same group. He lastly argued that the confessional statement is voluntarily and has been proved by the prosecution which corroborates the version of prosecution.
9. Arguments heard and record perused, in the light of which our finding is as under.
10. Perusal of the record shows that the occurrence had taken place in the house of complainant.
From the house of complainant, the blood-stained earth, pieces of ban of the cot have been recovered which proves that the occurrence had taken place in the house of complainant. The appellant/accused has been charged by his real daughter. Her statement is natural, direct and worthy reliance as the same is corroborated by P.W.8 Mst. Dana Mai aged about 73 years and her statement was not shattered by the defence. The false implication of the appellant/accused in the present case has not been ruled out as a natural witness had directly charged him having no previous or ulterior motive for charging him.
11. So far question of non-production of complainant as alleged by appellant/ accused is- concerned has been proved by putting, question to P.W.7 and P.W.8 and both of them have categorically stated that complainant Anwar Ali has been died during proceedings after the occurrence. The defence has been failed to prove otherwise that the complainant is alive neither they have put any question nor suggestion to the witnesses produced by the prosecution to the effect that the complainant is alive. The confessional statement has been recorded within 24 hours of the arrest of appellant/accused which fully corroborate the version of the prosecution. FSL report is positive and is in line the prosecution version which could not be ignored. The contention of defence that P.W.7 the ocular witness had stated that three blows were given to the deceased whereas as per postmortem report two injuries have been detected on the body of deceased. This stance of the defence is not acceptable because the statement of P.W.7 in a natural way cannot be discarded as by two blows one injury can be caused by blowing on the same part and portion of the victim. Hence this stance of the appellant/accused is immaterial in presence the seat of injuries mentioned in postmortem report and further in the light of un rebuttal evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.8.
12. The result of our above discussion is that the evidence produced by the prosecution is natural, straightforward, confidence-inspiring, hence, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant/ accused, which needs no interference by this Court. The appeal in hand is being without force, therefore, dismissed and the conviction of the accused/appellant is maintained.
13. As far as criminal revision for enhancement of sentence is concerned, the petitioner/complainant has been failed to make out a case sufficient for enhancement. The trial Court is competent forum to decide the quantum of sentence and in our opinion the sentence awarded is sufficient. Criminal Revision No,26 of 2007 being without force, which is hereby dismissed.
Appeal/.