MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J.-Naseer Ahmed son of Muhammad Shafi, Caste Jat, aged 19 years, resident of Mohallah Tajpura, Sialkot, has been con--victed by the Sessions Judge, Sialkot, under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life for causing the death of Ghulam Sarwar. He has preferred an appeal against the order of the learned Sessions Judge while the State has filed a revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the appellant. This order shall dispose of both these matters. z. It is alleged that in the evening of 24th June, 1970 the appellant and the deceased had a brawl.
Ghulam Sarwar gave a fist blow near the right eye of the appellant and thus caused an injury to him. They were, however, separated by the respectables of the locality. The appellant's father did not approve of his role qua the above incident and told the appellant that he should have either killed Ghulam Sarwar or should have got himself crushed under a running train. Thus, motivated by his father, the appellant on the following day, i.e. The 25th June, 1978 at about 1.00 p.m, assaulted Ghulam Sarwar with chhuri, Exh. P. 3, and caused him three injuries in the presence of Abdur Rehman (P. W. 15), Fazal Hussain (P. W. 16) and Muhammad Younis (P. W, 17) and then ran away alongwith chhuri. Ghulam Sarwar was removed to the Civil Hospital, Sialkot, in an injured condition.
There he was examined by Dr. Karam Hussain Sheikh (P. W. 2) who found three injuries on his person. Exh. P. G. Is copy of his medico-legal report. The said doctor stitched two of his wounds but before he could do something more to save his life, Ghulam Sarwar died at 2-45 p. m. The matter was reported to the police by Abdur Rehman (P. W. 15) by making statement Exh. P. A. Which was recorded by Ali Muhammad, A. S. I. (P., W. 18) at the Hospital. On the basis of the said statement, First Information Report, Exh. P. A./1, drawn was up at the Police Post A-Division, Sialkot, by Sanaullah, A. S. I. (P. W. 6).
3. Dr. Mehtab Akhtar (P. W. 1) performed post-mortem examination on the dead body of Ghulam Sarwar and found an incised would 1-----x 1/2" entering into the abdominal cavity situated on the outer aspect of middle of right side of abdomen, a stitched wound 1" long situated on the outer aspect of left chest in the interior auxiliary line 3' below the nipple and another stitched wound 3/4" long on front of left chest, 1 f below and lateral to left nipple. On internal examination it was noticed by him that the left pleura and left lung was cut by second injury and omentum and paritonium were cut and ascending colon was cut by the first one. In the opinion, of Dr. Mehtab Akhtar death of Ghulam Sarwar bad occurred due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from damage to left lung, large intestine and omentum vessels caused by the first two injuries. According to him, the third injury was a simple one. Exh. P. J. Is copy of his post--mortem examination report.
4. Muhammad Riaz Khan S. I. (P. W. 19), investigated the case. The appellant confessed before Nawab Din (P. W. 13) and Muhammad Shafi (P. W. 12) that he killed Ghulam Sarwar. He also asked Muhammad Shall to produce him before the Police so that the Police should not trouble his parents. Muhammad Sharif took him to Muhammad Riaz Khan S. I. (P. W. 19) on the day of occurrence whereupon he was arrested. On interrogation, the appellant led to the recovery of blood-stained chhuri, fixh. P. 3, from a maize field. This recovery was also witnessed by Abdul Majid (P. W. 11). According to the report of the Chemical Examiner, Exh. P. Q. And that of the Serologist, Exh.
P. N., the blood on the chhuri was of human origin. After completing the investigation, the S. I., sent up the appellant to face trial.
5. The appellant pleaded not guilty. After the prosecution had produced its oral and circumstantial evidence, referred to above, it was admitted by the appellant in his statement, under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that on the day preceding the day of occurrence he had a scuffle with the deceased in which the deceased gave a fist blow under his right eye. He also confessed having killed Ghulam Sarwar. According to him his death had occurred in the following circumstances: ---On the date of the incident due to intense heat I was sitting in the shop of Yusuf under the electric fan where Ghulam Sarwar deceased came and said that they had reconsidered the matter at night and that he would teach a lesson to me in case I uttered anything indecent about Abdul Qayyum his maternal-uncle. When I replied that what lesson he would teach me, Ghulam Sarwar whipped out a chhuri which be had concealed in his trousers and tried to hit me. I caught bold of his arm and during that struggle we came out in front of the shop of Muhammad Yusaf. The chhuri fell down and Ghulam Sarwar tried to catch it by his other hand because I was holding one of his arms. I did not let him pick up the chhuri Exh. P. 3 and in self-defence gave blows to Ghulam Sarwar which proved fatal."
The appellant did not produce any evidence in defence.
6. The learned Sessions Judge believed the version of the occurrence as put forth by the prosecution and holding the appellant guilty of having taken the life of Ghulam Sarwar convicted him under section 302, P. P. C. However, in view of the fact that he was motivated by a sense of revenge and the scolding taunt of his father, he did not award him death penalty and sentenced him to suffer transportation for life.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant did not question the verdict of the learned trial Court to the effect that the appellant had caused the death of Ghulam Sarwar. It was submitted by him that the quarrel which had taken place on the day preceding the day of occurrence, the young age of the appellant and the role played by the appellant's father qua the occurrence were mitigating circumstances in his favour.
8. These circumstances were of some help to the appellant in the matter of imposition of the penalty but they are of no avail to him so far as the question of his conviction is concerned, As indicated above, they were considered by the learned Sessions Judge while saving the appellant from the gallows. As regards his conviction, the plea of self-defence raised by the appellant does not derive support from anything on the record. No suggestion touching that plea had been made to the eye--witnesses of the occurrence. He also did not produce any evidence in defence. The eye-witnesses named above had no enmity with the appellant nor they are closely related to the deceased. They had fully supported the prosecution version. According to Muhammad Younis (P.
W. 17), who is also a witness of motive, it was the appellant who bad launched attack on the deceased. The ocular evidence is corroborated by the appellant's extra-judicial confession before Muhammad Sbafi (P. W. 12) and Nawab Din (P. W. 13), the recovery of blood-stained chhuri, Exh. P. 3, at his instance, and the medical report. We therefore, see no reason to disagree with the learned trial Court on the point that the appellant: was responsible for causing the death of Ghulam Sarwar and that there was no force in the plea of self-defence advanced by him. He was right: held to be guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 302, P. P. C. The sentence awarded to him also does not call for any inter--refence. We, therefore, uphold the conviction and. Sentence of the appellant.
9. His appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. As for the revision petition filed by the State, it was not pressed by Mr. S. M . Zubair, Assistant Advocate-General who bad appeared on behalf of the State.
Therefore, the criminal revision is also dismissed.