ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-Mohan appellant was accused of the murder of Rajoo (deceased) a young boy of about 18 years of age. The occurrence in this case took place at about 1-30 p.m. On 1- 11-1971. Punhoon the father of the deceased was informed about it at the local Hindu temple by his brother Dhano. He (the father of the deceased) went to the spot where his son was lying in an injured condition. He was removed to the hospital by Pritam (P. W. 2), while Punhoon went to the Police Station and lodged the F. 1, R. (Exh. P. 6) at 4 p.m on the same day. It was recorded by Zahoor-ul-Majid (P. W. 6) A. S. I.
The motive for the occurrence as stated in the F. I. R. Was that a day prior to the present occurrence the deceased had quarrelled with Mohan appellant over a matter relating to his (deceased's) younger brother Babu on which Rajoo had beaten Mohan. The latter, finding an opportunity, stabbed the former to death, in order to take revenge of his insult.
After recording the F. I. R. The Investigating Officer went to the spot. He took into possession some blood-stained earth. The accused was arrested and led to the recovery of the blood-stained knife (Exh. P. 13). Subsequently on chemical examination the knife was found stained by the human blood.
2. At the trial the prosecution produced Pritam (P. W. 2) and Matadin (P. W. 7) as eye-witnesses out of whom only Matadin P. W. Supported the prosecution case. It also relied on the blood-stained knife recovered at the instance of the appellant which as mentioned above, on chemical examination, was found to be stained with human blood; retracted judicial confession of the accused ; the evidence of motive and the medical evidence.
The trial Court believed the prosecution evidence and convicted the appellant under section 302, P.
P. C, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He then filed an appeal which was dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment but altered the sentence to transportation for life as the incident related to a period before the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972.
The appellant then filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal. Leave was granted to him by this Court on 26-2-1976, to consider only whether petitioner's retracted judicial confession was worthy of reliance.
3. It may be mentioned that Pritam (P. W. 2) who was mentioned in the F. I. R. As an eye-witness, declined to support the prosecution and was, therefore, declared hostile. Matadin (P. W. 7) who supported the case was not mentioned in the F.1. R. The learned trial Judge, as mentioned above, believed the testimony of Matadin (P. W. 7) as well as the remaining P. Ws.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant made a half hearted attempt to) discredit the evidence relating to the (retracted) judicial confession, but when asked as to why Matadin (P. W. 7) who was not, in any way related to any of the parties and was a natural and independent witness, could not be relied) upon, specially when his testimony, is supported by the recovery of blood--stained knife from the appellant, he submitted that he did not wish to p the case on merits and only prayed for reduction in sentence to the period o imprisonment already undergone by the appellant. The prayer cannot, how--ever, be acceded to because an offence under section 302. P. P. C. Is punishable either with death or with imprisonment for life (in this case transportation for life) and not with any shorter period of imprisonment.
In view of the matter the appeal is dismissed as being without any merit.