JAVID IQBAL, J.-Muhammad Nawaz son of Chanan, aged 18 years armed with a double-barrelled gun, has been convicted under section 302, P. P. C. For the murder of Mst. Bushra, aged 24 years, and vide, judgment dated 26th September, 1973 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha was sentenced to death plus fine of Rs. 5,000 which was ordered to be paid as compensation to heirs of the deceased or in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. The appeal of the convict is being disposed of alongwith Reference for the confirmation of death sentence awarded to the appellant by this judgment.
2. The occurrence took place at 9.00 a. m. On 15th August, 1976 in the house of the deceased within the area of Abadi Chakkian in Chak No. 1-NB, at a distance of nine miles from Police Station Bhalwal, District Sargodha. Statement Exh. P. C. Was made by Dost Muhammad P. W.
9. Father of the deceased, at 11-30 a. m. On the same day and it was recorded at Police Post, Phullarwan by Gulzar Hussain S. I. P. W.
11. Thereafter, formal F. I. R. Exh. P. C/1 was registered at Police Station Bhalwal, on the same day at 12-30 p. m. By Faiz Ahmad A. S. I, P. W. 5.
3. The motive for crime, as stated in the F. I. R. Is that the appel--lant demanded the hand of the deceased for marriage but on the refusal by her father, i. e. Dost Muhammad P. W. He held out a threat in the presence of Muhammad Aslam P. W. 7, a son-in-law of Dost Muhammad and Saroo P.
W.
8. Un connected four days before the present occurrence that he would teach him a lesson for his refusal.
4. The prosecution has produced two eye-witness of the occurrence who are inmates of the house, namely Dost Muhammad p. W. 9, father of the deceased, and Mst. Noor Begum P. W.
10. Mother of the deceased. Mst. Kania Fatima and Mst. Rashid Bibi, two sisters of the deceased, who were also inmates of the house and were cited as eye-witnesses in the F. I. R. Were given up -as un-- necessary.
5. In the F I. R. The occurrence is reported to have taken place in the following manner : On the fateful day Dost Muhammad P. W. 9 was present in his house along with Mst. Noor Begum P. W. 10, the deceased, Mst. Kaniz Fatima (not produced) and Mst. Rashid Bibi (not produced) and at that time the deceased was sitting under the Sheesham tree on a cot knitting something with crochet.
In the meantime, the appellant entered the courtyard, armed as described above, and after saying that he would teach them a lesson for not giving him the hand of the girl he fired at the deceased from behind through his gun. The shot hit at her back and the pellets passing through the left breast of the girl hit her left arm. The deceased fell down on the cot and appellant ran away along with the weapon of offence. 'The occurrence was witnessed besides Dost Muhammad P. W. By Mst.
Noor Begum P. W. Mst. Kaniz Fatima and Mst. Rashid Bibi. Dost Muhammad P. W. Raised alarm and even chased the appellant. In the street even. Ghulam Jafir (since deceased) who saw the appellant, ran after him. But the appellant held out a threat that if anyone came near he would shoot and, therefore, he managed to escape. The deceased died on the spot. Leaving behind Ghulam Jafir and Mst. Noor Begum P. W. To guard the dead body, Dost Muhammad P. W.
Proceeded to lodge the report.
6. The appellant was arrested on the same day i.e., 15th August, 1976 by Gulzar Hussain S. I. P. W. 11.
No crime-empty was picked up from the spot as there was none. However, the Police took into possession blood-stained earth from the spot, blood-stained cot on which the deceased had fallen as well as crochet with which she was knitting at the time of her murder. These recoveries are incorporated in the memo. Exh. P. E. Dated 15th August, 1976 attested by Ghulam Saghir (not produced), Muhammad Aslam P. W. 7 and Gulzar Hussain S. I., P. W.
11. At the instance of the appellant was recovered double-barrelled gun which was licensed in the name of one Lal Khan and it was taken into possession vide memo Exh. P. F. Dated 15th September, 1976. The attesting witnesses are Ghulam Jafir (since deceased), Muhammad Aslam P. W. 7 and Gulzar Hussain S. I., P.
W.
11. The gun was not sent to the Fire--arms Expert as no crime-empty had fallen on the spot. The recovery evidence is not of much help because the recovery of double-barrelled gun at the instance of the appellant does riot connect hint with the commission of crime.
7. The appellant, in his statement before the trial Court, totally denied having participated in the occurrence. He denied that he had ever asked for the hand of the deceased and he was refused.
He disowned the recovery and stated that he bad been falsely implicated due to enmity. He further stated that the deceased was indulging in prostitution and people of shady character used to visit her. After the occurrence it was said in the village that she had been murdered alone iii the house by some dejected lover who fired at her twice.
8. Dr. Mumtaz Ahmad P. W. I conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased at 5-30 p.m. On 15th January; 1976 and found on her person three injuries caused by fire- arm and two abrasions. The fire-arm wounds were on left side of the back of chest, on the left wrist and left palm. The abrasions were on the left fore-arm. The first three injuries had been caused by a fire-arm and two abrasions were the result of a blunt-weapon. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of the fire-arm injuries which were individually as well as collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The first two injuries were dangerous whereas second and third were grievous. The abrasions were simple. He stated in the cross-examination that the direction of injuries 2 and 3 was different and, therefore, there was a possibility that they had been caused by two shots. Subsequently, in re- examination he stated that the two fire-arm injuries could not result as a result of the charge of the first injury coming out of the exit of the first injury.
9. We have heard learned counsel and perused the record carefully. The motive version is supported by Dost Muhammad P. W. And Saroo P. W. 8, who is an unconnected and disinterested person. Learned counsel attempted to argue that Saroo P. W. Could not identify the person who had come to the father of the deceased asking for the hand of the girl and on refusal had left with the threat. He further argued that Muhammad Aslam P. W. Was closely related to Dost Muhammad P. W. And that Dost Muhammad P. W. Had stated that although he could have given the girl's hand to the appellant but he refused. On the basis of this evidence learned counsel argued that the motive set up by the prosecu--tion was not established and, therefore, the real cause of the occurrence was shrouded in mystery. It was next argued that the two eye--witnesses, in the instant case, produced by the prosecution, namely, Dost Muhammad and Mst. Noor Begum were closely related to the deceased and were interested witnesses. According to learned counsel it was an unwitnessed occurrence and they had not seen the occurrence. Both of them had stated that the appellant had fired one shot whereas according to the medical evidence possibly two shots had been fired at her. It was next argued that the recovery evidence had no corroborative value, It was then submitted that there was some evidence on the record from which it could be inferred that the deceased was a girl of easy virtue and that since she was leading a life of prostitute, according to the statement of the appellant, some dejected lover might have murdered her but the appellant was falsely implicated due to enmity. It was finally argued that in any case the appellant, at the time of commission of crime, was only 16 years old and ordinarily a 16 years old lad might have not asked the hand of a 24 years girl who was much older than him and that even if he is held responsible for her murder then due to his young age at the time of the com--mission of crime, a case was made out for the awarding of lesser penalty.
We have considered the arguments of learned counsel and find them without any substance. The motive set up by the prosecution, in our view, is established. Dost Muhammad P. W. And Muhammad Aslam P. W. Had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant and to concoct a motive story. There is no reason why their testimony in respect of the motive should be disbelieved when it is being supported by the statement of Saroo P. W. To the extent that some person had come asking for the hand of the girl in his presence but the father refused and he left with a threat. If Saroo P. W. Could not identify the appellant at that time, his statement still corroborates testimony of Dost Muhammad and Muhammad P. Ws. In our view, there is no reason to suppose that a boy of young age could have not asked the hand of the deceased, who was older than him. The deceased was an unmarried girl and, therefore, the appellant could have asked for her hand and on refusal he held out a threat that he would teach a lesson. Consequently, in our view the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the motive which it had set up. The eye-witnesses of the occurrence are inmates of the house and, therefore, natural witnesses of the occurrence. Dost Muhammad and Mst. Noor Begum P. Ws. Are father and mother of the deceased and the deceased was murdered in her house while she was sitting on a cot under Sheesham tree and was knitting with crochet. These objects were taken into possession by the Police and they supported the ocular testimony to the extent that the deceased diet in the manner in which she had been described by the eye-witnesses. Since the eye-witnesses in the instant case, are inmates of the house and natural witnesses, they could not be considered as interested witnesses because .4 they had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant and to substitute him, for the real culprit.' They have both given a consistent version of the occurrence and have denied the suggestion that the deceased was leading the life of a prostitute and different people of shady character used to visit her or that she had been murdered by some dejected lover. They denied that it was an unseen occurrence.
We have no reason to disbelieve their testimony. As for the argument of learned counsel that in the opinion of the doctor the possibility could not be ruled out that the girl died as a result of two shots, we are of the view that this was merely a possibility as described by the Medical Officer. This would not, in any way, contradict the ocular testimony. In any case, the appellant was stated to be armed with a double-barrelled gun and some time when a double-barrelled gun is fired instantaneously the two shots so fired instantaneously could give the impression to an unconscious listener as if it was one shot that was fired. At any rate, it is irrelevant whether the appellant fired one shot or two shots. If he had entered the house of the deceased with a gun which was double-barrelled and was seen by two inmates of the house for having fired at her, in the absence of any" motive of false implication, it cannot be said that the ocular testimony is inconsistent with the opinion of the Medical Officer who had not witnessed the occurrence and was only stating that there was a possibility of two shots having been fired. We have carefully considered this aspect that the appellant was a young man of 16 years at the time of commission of crime but in our view no case is made out for the awarding of lesser penalty as there is no mitigating circumstance. Ire had behaved in a. Cruel manner. He asked for the hand of the girl. He was refused. He held out a threat that he would teach a lesson. He came armed with is, double-barrelled gun to the house of the deceased and shot at her thereby, killing her. Thereafter, in order to construct .His defence he tried to make out a case that the deceased was a woman of easy virtue, leading the life of a prostitute and thus defaming a poor unmarried girl. In the circumstances, be does not deserve any leniency.
In our considered opinion, prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case as against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and, therefore, the conviction as well as sentence awarded to him were quite proper and are accordingly maintained. The result is that this appeal is dismissed.
The death sentence awarded to the appellant is hereby confirmed.