1. WAHIDUDDIN ABMAD, J.-This Jail Appeal is directed against the judgment of the former High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, in Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 1967 (Murder Reference No. 113 of 1967), dated the 4th March 1968. By this judgment, the High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant and reduced his sentence to transportation for life.
2. The appellant was tried for committing the murder of Abdur Rashid on the 25th January 1967, in the area of Jalal Din Road, Mozang, Lahore. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, by judgment dated the 30th June 1967, convicted and sentenced him to death under section 302, P. P.
3. C. The appellant challeng--ed this order in the above-mentioned Criminal Appeal which was dismissed on the 4th March 1968. The appellant's sentence was, however, reduced from death to transportation far life. The appellant challenged this judgment in this appeal before us.
4. Special leave was granted in this case to re-examine the evidence led by the parties in the case.
5. The appellant and deceased were related to each other. Appellant is the son of Barkat Ali. Barkat Ali has two brothers, namely, Sardar Muhammad and Muhammad Hussain. The appellant is also the adopted son of Sardar Muhammad. Sabir Hussain P. W. Is the son of Khurshid Begum who is the sister of Barkat Ali, Sardar Muhammad and Muhammad Hussain. Abdur Rashid deceased was the son of Sardar Begum who is also the sister of Barkat Ali, Sardar Muhammad and Muhammad Hussain. Sardar Muhammad .Has a daughter named Mst. Asmat. Ara, Appellant was living with Sardar Muhammad in Lahore. Abdur Rashid deceased also used to live in the house of Sardar Muhammad his maternal uncle.
6. The prosecution case is that about 8/9 months before the occurrence, Abdur Rashid deceased had developed illicit relation with Mst. Asma t Ara. He abducted her on the 21st June 1966, and took her away to Gujranwala. She was restored to her parents after a month. This resulted in bitter enmity between the parties, including the appellant. It is alleged that a day before the occur--rence Abdur Rashid came from Gujranwala and stayed with Sabir Hussain P. W. On the 25th January 1967, after the deceased and Sabir Hussain had finished their breakfast the deceased left the house of Sabir Hussain. Sabir Hussain accom--panied him to see him off at Chowk Bhoondpura, Mozang, Lahore.
7. When the deceased and Sabir Hussain P. W. Reached the Chowk, Ashraf appellant appeared from the back side and gave a dagger blow in the abdomen of Abdur Rashid deceased. Abdur Rashid sat down. The occurrence was witnessed by Riaz Ali and Sabir Hussain P. Ws. They chased the appellant to capture him but he escaped. Abdur Rashid was put in a Rickshaw. Sabir Hussain and Riaz Ali accompanied him. They first took the injured to Ganga Ram Hospital and from there to Police Dispensary adjoining Law College, Lahore. Thereafter, they took the injured to Mayo Hospital, Lahore, where he was admitted. Exh. D. 4/1, a report was recorded by F. C. Riaz Hussain, D. W. 1, at 10- 15 a.m. Attached to the Casualty Ward of Mayo Hospital, Lahore. It was to the effect that one Abdur Rashid son of Abdullah, caste Sheikh, resident of Bhoondpura had been brought to Hospital by Riaz Ali son of Taj Din Arain of Kashmirian Street, House No. 3, Jalal Din Road, Mozang, Lahore, who informed that Abdur Rashid was injured during some fight. Riaz Hussain reported this matter at Police Station, Mozang to Hassan Ahmad A. S. I. The A. S. I. Proceeded to the Hospital in a tonga. The A. S. I. Went to the ward and saw injured person. The injured person succumbed to the injuries in the Hospital. A report, Exh. D. 5/1, was recorded in the daily diary of Police Station Mozang, Lahore, by Head-Constable Khushi Muhammad. The statement of Sabir Hussain P. W., Exb. P. E. Was recorded in the Mayo Hospital at about 11.00 noon. The formal First Information Report, Exh. P. E./1, was recorded at 12-25 p.m. The matter was investigated by Sultan Ali Sub---Inspector P. W.
13. He inspected the spot but found no blood at the place of occurrence. He arrested the appellant at 8- 30 p.m. From outside Masti Gate in the presence of Arif Hussain P. W. 10 and Shaukat Ali P. W. 11 and recovered from his person a blood stained dagger from the fold of his shalwar and sealed it into a parcel, Exh. P. C. The dagger was found blood-stained by the Serologist.
8. The plea of the appellant is that he has been involved in the case on account of enmity with Abdur Rashid. He admitted the relationship between the parties. He also admitted that Mst. Asmat Ara was abducted by Abdur Rashid deceased who was later on, restored to her parents. He has also produced in his defence Riaz Hussain D. W. 1, Khushi Muhammad D. W. 2 and Barkat Ali D. W. 3.
9. The prosecution case has rested on the evidence of P. W. Sabir Hussain and P. W. Riaz Ali and on the recovery of the dagger from the person of the appellant. Both the Courts below have disbelieved the evidence of Sabir Hussain P. W. They have also not relied on the recovery of dagger from the person of the appellant.
10. Malik Muhammad Jaffar, learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the entire record.
11. In our opinion the evidence of Sabir Hussain is quite convincing and he appears to be a truthful witness. The finding of the Courts below that at the time of the occurrence he was at Gujranwala cannot be supported on the evidence on the record. Similarly, the recovery of dagger also appears us to be genuine. There is no ground to disbelieve the statement of Arif Hussain P. W. 10 and Shaukat Ali P. W.
11. The mere fact that no injury was found on the person of the appellant cannot lead to the conclusion that the dagger was not recovered from the naifa or the fold of his shalwar.
12. Considering, however, that a doubt has been expressed on the evidence of P. W. Sabir Hussain and the recovery of dagger from the person of the appellant, we exclude it from taking into con-- sideration and would not rely on this piece of evidence for considering the question whether the appellant has been rightly convicted or not.
13. The next piece of evidence is the statement of Riaz Ali P. W. It is not disputed that the shop of this witness is situated near the place of occurrence, that he carries on vegetable business and that he had accompanied the deceased to the Mayo Hospital. The occurrence took place near his shop in broad daylight and there can be no question of any mistake in identifying the assailant. He is a natural witness of the occurrence and his presence on the spot cannot be doubted. The learned counsel for the appellant was unable to satisfy us that this witness was, in any way, interested in the deceased or on inimical terms with the appellant. The only criticism that has been made of his evidence is that his statement that he had gone to purchase vegetable from the vegetable market at 3-00 a.m. Should not be believed. It is further argued that he is not a truthful witness because his statement that Sabir Hussain was present on the scene of occurrence has been disbelieved by the two Courts below. We have gone through the evidence of this person and there is not a slightest doubt in our mind that he is a truthful witness and that he has seen the occurrence and identified the assailant.
14. Malik Muhammad Jaffar, learned counsel for the appel--lant, has contended that the investigating agency has fabricated the evidence against the appellant. He has further referred us to the statement of Riaz Hussain D. W. 1, Foot Constable attached to the Mayo Hospital and has contended that the name of the assailant was not given to this witness by Riaz Ali. He has further contended that the second injury on the deceased has not been mentioned in the First Information Report. The learned counsel further contended that corroborative evidence has not been produced in support of the evidence of Riaz Ali.
15. None of the contentions raised by the learned counsel has any force. There is no finding of the Courts below that the investi--gating agency has fabricated the evidence. Riaz Ali P. W. Is a natural witness and his evidence has been rightly believed by the Courts below. It is quite true that the name of the appellant was not given to Riaz Hussain but its absence is of no significance. The Police constable concerned was not expected to take details of the occurrence. The mere fact that it was stated before him that the deceased was injured in a fight does not mean that there was any actual fight between the parties. The conviction of the appellant can be based on the solitary evidence of Riaz Ali if he is found to be a truthful witness and there is no need to have any corroboration of his statement.
16. After carefully considering the evidence of P. W. Riaz Ali we are satisfied that he is a natural witness.
17. He has deposed about the occurrence in a true manner and the learned Courts below were perfectly justified in relying on his statement for the conviction of the appellant. No ground has been made out to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The appeal is dismissed.