Samual Masih was convicted on 2nd April, 1979 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, under section 302, P. P. C. And sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rupees two thousand or in default in payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The fine, if recovered; was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. Feeling aggrieved of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Samual Masih has filed the present appeal. Shafi Masih com--plainant filed revision petition for the enhancement of sentence of Samual Masih from life imprisonment to death, which was ordered to be heard alongwith criminal appeal. The appeal and the revision petition arc being disposed of together.
2. On 2nd December, 1977 at about sunset time, Rafique Masih alias Toti deceased accompanied by Mushtaq Masih (P. W. 9) was going to the cinema hall. Shafi Masih complainant (P. W. 8) and Ghulam Masih (not produced) were present at the road near Basil Easaian; situated within the jurisdiction of Police Station City, Sargodha. Samual Masih appellant was following the deceased.
After crossing the bridge of drain, the appellant gave a push to the deceased, whereupon both of them quarrelled with each other. Mushtaq Masih P. W. Raised noise. Shafi Masih complainant and Ghulam Masih P. W. Rushed towards the spot. The appellant took out chhuri from his dab and inflicted two blows to the deceased with chhuri, who fell down. The witnesses tried to apprehend the appellant, but he succeeded in running away. Rafiq Masih was taken to Civil Hospital, Sargodha, where he succumbed to the injuries,
3. Samual Masih appellant suspected Rafique Masih for haul illicit relations with his sister Mst.
Seeman, wife of Feroze. On the day of occurrence at 4.00 p. m., some one was beating drum in front of the house of Mst. Seeman. The deceased was present there but was sent away by the appellant.
A quarrel had taken place between the two and this was the motive for the commission of the murder.
4. Leaving the dead body in Civil Hospital, Sargodba, under the care of Mushtaq Masih and Ghulam Masih P. W., Shafi Masih complainant reached Police Station City, Sargodha, which was at a distance of three/ four mile from the spot and lodged the F. I. R. Exh. P. G., which recorded by Majidullah, Inspector Police (P. W. 10). After recording the F. I. R., Majidullah Inspector reached hospital. He prepared injury statement and inquest report of the deceased and sent the dead body f,;,; post-mortem examination. On reaching the spot, he collected blood- stained earth and sealed it into a parcel. He arrested the appellant on 3rd December, 1977 who was wearing blood-stained shirt P. 4 and blood-stained. Shalwar P. 5, which were removed from his person and sealed into a parcel. On interrogation, the appellant led to the recovery of blood., stained chhuri and consequently produced blood-stained chhuri P. 6 from underneath a heap of bricks lying in his courtyard, which was sealed into a parcel: The appellant was challaned after investigation.
5. Dr. Inamul-Haq conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Rafique Masih alias Toti, on 3rd December, 1977 at 7.30 a. m. He found the following injuries on his person:-
(1) An incised stab wound 3/4" x I/2" x 1f." deep to the bone, on the left shoulder and incised wound 1' x 1/8" x skin deep of the left side of the wound 1 J" on the lateral and outer side.
(2) An incised stab wound 1" x 1/4'' x chest cavity deep on the left front side of the chest, 1 -- " on the lateral and lower left nipple.
Pleurae were injured on the left side. Pericardium and left lower part of the heart were injured. In the opinion of doctor, death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries Nos. 1 and 2.
Injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Both the injuries were caused with sharp-edged weapon. The duration between injuries and death was within half an hour and between death and post---mortem within eighteen hours.
6. Shafi Masih (P. W. 8) and Mushtaq Masih (P. W. 9) gave the --account of the occurrence. They fully supported the prosecution case and named the appellant as the person, who committed the murder of Rafique Masih, by inflicting chhuri blows. George Masih (P. W. 6) and Majidullah Inspector (P. W. 10) deposed about the recoveries of blood stained clothes from the person of the appellant and blood-stained chhuri, which was produced by the appellant from underneath the heap of bricks lying in his courtyard. The rest were the formal witnesses.
7. The case of the appellant was that of total denial. He attributed the case to enmity. He did not lead any evidence in defence.
8.'The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution failed to produce any independent witness, although some persons from Basti Easaian had witnessed the occurrence; that the occurrence had ken place during the darkness of night and it was an unwitnessed ccurrence ; that both the eye-witnesses made false statements and they ;sere not present at the spot ; that Shafi Masih complainant had no business ,, be present near the drain bridge ; that the recoveries were falsely planted ,n the appellant ; that the statement of Sardar Masih (P. W. 4) smashed tie recoveries because the said witness deposed in Court that the appellant was arrested on the evening of the day of occurrencethat some other persons were present at the time of recoveries but they did not attest - the recovery memos. Lastly it was argued that even if the prosecution version as accepted at its face value, the appellant had not committed the offence f murder. It was submitted that the deceased had grievance against the -appellant as the latter had sent him away from the house of his sister when the former was present there during the beating of drum and in fact, he was the assailant. It was also contended that it was a case of grave and sudden provocation because the deceased had taunted the appellant by saying that he had come after meeting his sister.
8. I cannot agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the occurrence had taken place during the darkness of night. The deceased and Mushtaq Masih P. W. Were going to the cinema hall to see a movie. The usual time for the evening show is about 6-30 p. m. About forty-five minutes prior to the show, cinema management starts selling the tickets: If a person goes to cinema hail, usually he is there about an hour prior to the show. The occurrence had not taken place during the night as contended by learned counsel for the appellant. Rather it had taken place at about sunset time as stated by the prosecution witnesses. The deceased was accompanying Mushtaq Masih P.
W. It is true, that Shafi Masih com--plainant was an elder brother of the deceased and Mushtaq Masih a relative of the deceased but the statements of the said two witnesses could not be rejected on account of their relationship. There was no bad-blood between the deceased and the appellant. The suspicion arose a month or two before the occurrence. Shafi Masih and Mushtaq Masih had no motive to make out a false case against the appellant. Both of them could not be considered as interested witnesses. Shafi Masih was present near Basti Easaian on the road. He was having a chat with Ghulam Masih P. W. The occurrence had taken place close to that spot.
Shafi Masih had seen the deceased and Mushtaq P. W. Going to the cinema hall followed by the appellant. He also saw them quarrelling and he rushed towards the spot and witnessed the occurrence. I have not come across any discrepancy between the statements of these two eye- witnesses. Their statements were free from inherent defects. There was no material on record to indicate that both these eye-witnesses were not present at the spot and had not witnessed the occurrence. Both of them tried to appre--hend the appellant but he succeeded in making good his escape. For the reasons stated above, I hold that Shafi Masih and Mushtaq Masih had witnessed the occurrence and made correct statements.
9. The statement of George Masih, a recovery witness, could not to brushed aside for the sole reason that he was related to the deceased. The appellant was arrested on the next day of the occurrence, at about morning time. He was wearing blood-stained clothes- at. That time. I do not find any improbability in it. Being a poor person, some new clothes might not be readily available.
On interrogation, he produced blood-stained chhuri from his courtyard from underneath a heap of bricks. Some other persons were present when the appellant was apprehended but there was nothing on the record to show that those persons were residents of the locality. It was an innocent admission on the part of Sardar Masih.
(P. W. 4) that the appellant was arrested on the day of occurrence at about sunset time. It could not be so for the reasons that the case had been registered at 6-15 p.m. And Inspector Police started investigation after the registration of the case. On reaching the spot, the Inspector prepared injury statement and inquest report and sent the dead body for post---mortem examination. These circumstances would show that the appellant had not been arrested at about sunset time on the evening of the day of occurrence. From the statements of George Masih and Majidullah Inspector, recoveries of blood-stained clothes and blood-stained chhuri stood proved beyond reasonable doubt.
10. It was suggested to the complainant, if the deceased had told the appellant that he was a paramour of his sister and as to why he had objected to his presence near the house of his sister and further told him that he had just come back from the fields after having a meeting with his sister. This suggestion was denied by the complainant. The witness further denied the suggestion that Mst. Seeman crossed the bridge towards the house. These suggestions were put in order to bring the case of the appellant under grave and sudden provocation. Similar suggestions were put to Mushtaq P. W. And he too refuted the suggestions. There was not an iota of evidence on record for prove these suggestions. Even the appellant had not taken up the plea of grave and sudden provocation in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr. P. C. I feel no hesitation in rejecting the plea of the appellant put to the two eye-witnesses during the cross-examination with regard to those suggestions. The pie of self-defence was also not available to the appellant as he had not even a scratch on his body.
11. The upshot of the above discussion is, that the appeal has been found to be without any merit and it is dismissed.
12. The revision petition also merits dismissal because of the suspicion in the mind of the appellant about the illicit relations between his sister and the deceased. The appellant had committed the murder of Rafique Masih in order to vindicate the family honour. The revision petition is consequently dismissed.