Bilal Hussain petitioner was tried and convicted under section 307, P.P.C. By Syed Masood Ali Shah, Magistrate Section 30, Multan. He was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months vide order dated 3rd February, 1981. His appeal against the aforementioned order of conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan on 20th September, 1981. The petitioner has now filed the present revision petition against the orders passed by the Courts below.
2. The allegations made against the petitioner were that on 18th July, 1979, at about 8.30 p.m. He had attacked Muhammad Husnain and had inflicted injury in his abdomen with a knife. The occurrence was witnessed by Bilal Hussain complainant uncle of Muhammad Husnain, Kausar Hussain and Manzoor Hussain P. Ws: The -petitioner had attacked Muhammad Husnain as the latter bad quarrelled with him about two or three days prior tp the occurrence in a cinema house.
3. In order to prove its case against the petitioner the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. Bilal Hussain-complainant appeared as P. W.
1. While Kausar Hussain and Manzoor Hussain the other eyewit--nesses in the case appeared as P.W. 3 and P. W. 4 respectively.
Muhammad Husnain injured was examined as P.W.
2. Dr. Abdul Aziz who medically examined the injured P.W. Appeared as P.W. 6 to prove the medico-legal report. Qadir Bakhsh A.S.I. Who had conducted the investigation of the case was examined as P.W.
7. Allah Wasaya P.W. 5 proved the recovery of blood-stained knife which was effected at the instance of the petitioner from a 'Jawar' field. Mumtaz Ahmad F.C. Who was posted as Naib--Moharrir at Police Station Sadar at the time of occurrence was examined as P. W. 8 as he had drawn up the formal F.I.R. In the case.
4. The petitioner controverted the prosecution story and pleaded that he was falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity. He however, did not examine any witness in his defence.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is not covered by section 307, P.P.C.I as there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had any intention to commit the murder of Muhammad Husnain P. W. And further that the injury allegedly caused by the petitioner was not declared dangerous by the doctor. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner because the weapon used by the petitioner and the location of the injury clearly suggest that the petitioner had caused the injury with the intention of causing death or with the intention that the injury inflicted by -him was likely to cause the death of Muhammad Husnain. The mere fact that the petitioner bad caused only one injury to Muhammad Husnain does not exonerate him from the charge of committing murderous assault as the said injury was inflicted by him on vital part of the body of Muhammad Husnain.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the learned trial Magistrate has not properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as he has mainly relied upon the statements which they have made during, the course of examination-in-chief. After going through the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate it has been found that the statements made by the prosecution witnesses in reply to the questions put to them in cross-examination by the defence counsel have also been considered by the learned trial Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any, material discrepancy in the deposi--tions of the eye- witnesses.
7. The next point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecution has failed to examine any independent and disinterested witnesses to prove the alleged recovery of the blood- stained knife from the petitioner as Allah Wasaya P.W. 5 .Who has been examined in this behalf is the father of Muhammad Husnain injured. Since Allah Wasaya P. W. 5 was also present at the time of the recovery of the blood-stained knife, and as such had attested the, memo, of recovery, his testimony cannot be discarded merely on account of his being the father of the injured P. W. The recovery of blood-stained knife at the instance of the petitioner is proved even by the deposition of Qadir Bakhsh A.S.I. Who had conducted the investigation of the case. There is no reason to ignore the evidence of the Investigating Officer who had no cause to depose falsely against the petitioner.
There is no doubt that the recovery of the blood--stained knife was effected seven days after the occurrence but mere delay in the recovery of the weapon of offence is not by itself sufficient to consider it as suspicious.
8. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that non-production of blood- stained clothes of Muhammad Husnain by the prosecution raises an adverse inference against the prosecution. There is, however, not much force in the above contention because the blood-stained clothes of the injured P. W. Could be used as a corroborative piece of evidence by the prosecution and since there is sufficient direct evidence as well as corroborative evidence available on the file, the non-production of blood-stained clothes at the trial does not affect the prosecution case.
9. The other arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was some delay in the registration of the case, and that the com--plainant's statement which formed the basis of the F.I.R.
Was not recorded at the police station are also of not much significance and do not adversely effect the prosecution case.
10. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by the learned trial Magistrate is not open to question in view of the facts and circumstances noticed above. There is no force in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.