' SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.---This appeal filed under section 410, Cr.P.C. Is directed against judgment dated 28-4-2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chiniot who while trying the appellant Tariq Amjad in case F.I.R. No, 608 dated 2-9-2009 registered under section 302, P.P.C. At Police Station Langrana District Chiniot had convicted him under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced him to life imprisonment. The appellant was further directed to pay compensation of Rs,100,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default of the payment of the said amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainant Ghulam Mustafa, brother of Shamsher Ali (deceased), aged 14/15 years had gone to his school (deceased) situated at Chak No,237-JB at the close hours to pick him and when both the brothers reached near Veterinary Hospital, the accused Tariq Amjad caught hold of Shamsher Ali and gave a knife blow in the presence of Abid Hussain and Muhammad Iqbal, P.Ws. At the chest of the deceased who fell on the ground while the assailant managed to escape. The injured was taken to the hospital where he succumbed to the injury.
3. The motive behind the occurrence was that a day earlier on 1-9-2009, both the deceased and the accused had exchanged some abuses and the deceased had given a slap to the culprit who in return threatened him for taking revenge.
4. P.W.8, Muhammad Amin, S.I/I.O. Completed investigations in the case who arrested the appellant on 14-9-2009 and on his pointation had recovered blood stained knife (P.3) whereafter he forwarded the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. To the court for trial.
5. Before the learned trial court, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and the prosecution in order to prove the same had examined eight witnesses in all. The prosecution evidence was further strengthened by the reports of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist issued in respect of the weapon of offence which they found stained with blood and the blood was of human being.
6. The evidence produced by the prosecution was confronted to the accused who while negating the allegations of his presence at the spot and inflicting fatal blow to the deceased, in an answer to the question "why" the case against you and why the P.Ws. Deposed against you" stated that "P.Ws. Are relatives inter se and the complainant of the case and the P.Ws. Lodged F.I.R. Against him to blackmail him, his father and his grandfather falsely in this case. It was a blind murder. I am innocent." He did not opt to depose on oath in respect of the allegations levelled against him and in his defence, he had produced School Leaving Certificate Exh.DC and Birth Certificate Exh.DD.
7. P.W.2, Dr. Muhammad Rehmatullah vide the postmortem report Exh.PB reported a solitary injury on the chest of the deceased in the following words:- "A stab wound (incised wound) of 2.5 cm X 1 cm on left upper chest."
' According to him, the injury had damaged and injured the left lung pericardium and heart which resulted into death. According to further observation of the Medical Officer, the probable time elapsed between the injury and death within half an hour and between death and postmortem as 2-12 hours.
8. The learned trial court has duly appreciated the evidence and discussed the points of motive, ocular account, medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the appellant by discussing the volume of evidence led by the prosecution and also met with the objections raised by the defence. The discrepancies pointed out in the statements of P.W.6 and P.W.7, the eye-witnesses were brushed aside by the court on the ground that mere relationship of the witnesses and the deceased is not enough to set aside their testimonies and the discrepancies pointed out did not absolve the appellant from his inculpability. The medical evidence has also been believed to be in line with the ocular account. The objections raised by the appellant before the learned trial court, have again be reiterated in the instant appeal.
9. The main stress of learned counsel for the appellant in the instant appeal is that the appellant as per document Exh.DC and Exh.DD is having the age of 13/14 years. The other points on which learned counsel has argued this appeal, relates to the discrepancies in the statements of P.W.6 and P.W.7, lapse in conducting the investigations left by P.W.8 and non-professional attitude adopted by P.W.3, Kashif Hameed, Draftsman in drafting the scaled-site-plan. While pointing out improvements in the statements of eye-witnesses, it is the argument of learned counsel that when the school was over, the teachers of the school were found leaving but none of them had met with the complainant of the case and that after the occurrence, it is not on the record as to who had taken the books and bag of the deceased from the place of occurrence. He has tried to point out contradictions in the statements of P.W.8 and the eye-witnesses. In this connection, the learned counsel has also placed reliance upon various judgments of the apex Court as well as of this court stating that only one circumstance is sufficient to cast doubt upon the story of the prosecution, the benefit of which is to be extended to the appellant. He has also referred to the judgments in respect of conducting postmortem examination with delay and it is argued that delayed postmortem indicates that eye-witnesses were planted.
10. On the other hand, the arguments have been controverted by the learned counsel for the complainant submitting that it is a daylight occurrence in which a single accused is involved who had inflicted a single injury to the deceased which proved fatal and that the identity of the assailant is not shrouded in mystery as he is known to the complainant party who in the presence of the complainant and witnesses had killed the younger brother of the complainant. He has also commented upon the factum of recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the appellant with the assertion that the same was recovered on the pointation of the appellant who had the knowledge of the place where the weapon had been concealed, thus the recovery is neither planted and nor is doubtful. It is added by learned counsel that the appellant failed to establish his defence by producing his grandfather in the witness box to establish the involvement of his father and grandfather in the transaction of Rs,30,000. Lastly, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the prosecution has established the guilt of the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt.
11. Parties have been heard at length and the record as well as the case-law cited at the bar has also been examined minutely.
12. The first ground taken by the defence about minority of the appellant is found untenable for the reason that in respect of the age of the appellant, the ossification test has already been conducted by the Board of the Doctors on the orders of the court and according to report submitted by the said Board, the age of the appellant was about 17-years at the time of occurrence. In this regard, documents Exh.DC and Exh.DD cannot be relied upon after report of medical board. So far as the contradictions pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant in the statements of P.W.6 and P.W.7 are concerned, it is found that those discrepancies do not negate the factum of murder in the daylight near the veterinary hospital rather it goes to establish that it is only the appellant who while armed with a sharp edged weapon had inflicted single blow on the vital part of the body of the deceased which resulted into his death. In this respect, the learned trial court has examined the evidence available on the record and while repelling the objections of the appellant, had held that the testimonies of P.W.6 and P.W.7 are confidence inspiring and do not create any circumstance leading to the belief that some other person had killed Shamsher Ali, than the appellant. Similarly, with respect to the objection in respect of the investigations conducted by P.W.8, it is found that the witness has squarely supported the prosecution version who during the course of investigation, had proceeded to arrest the appellant and also recovered the weapon of offence on his pointation.
Mere fact that on some points, he has given a different view than the one taken by P.W.6 and P.W.7 is A not sufficient to discard his testimony which is otherwise supported by the evidence on the record. The findings recorded by the learned trial court to this effect do not suffer from misreading and non-reading of the evidence. Similarly, the medical evidence is also corroborative to the narrations of the eye-witnesses regarding seat of injury and the kind of weapon used in the occurrence. There is no evidence produced by the defence to the effect that the postmortem examination was conducted with the delay due to the reason that the real assailant was not traceable and the appellant was substituted. It is very strange that a real brother of the deceased would proceed to let off the real assailant and substitute some other person for the murder of his brother. In this go, it is observed by the learned trial court that it is the appellant who had the knowledge of the place where he had kept the crime weapon, who, led to the said place and got recovered the same. This finding of the court cannot be brushed aside on the simple ground that the independent person of the locality or some respectable did not join at that time by the investigating officer.
13. The survey of the whole record as well as the case-law cited at the bar leads to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the appellant who solely is the person inflicting the single fatal injury to the deceased in the daylight for no legal justification and in this respect, the learned trial court has rightly believed the prosecution evidence which findings have borne out of the record and supported by convincing and cogent prosecution evidence, thus are liable to be maintained.
14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal in hand having no merits, is dismissed.