The appellant, Shaukat Ali alias Pappoo aged 15!16 years, resident of Jinnah Park, Sheikhupura, was tried by the learned Additional. Sessions Judge, Sargodha, for the offence of murder punishable under section 302, P. P. C. For intentionally causing the death of Muhammad Boota deceased on 1st August, 1978 at 4.00 p.m. By giving him churri blows in the area of New Vegetable Market, Sargodha.
2. The learned trial Judge vide his judgment dated 16th September, 1979 convicted the appellant under section 302, P. P. C. And sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000 or in default to one year's R. I. It was also directed that the fine, if realized, shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation. The petitioner has challenged his conviction and sentence through the present appeal.
3. Muhammad Boota deceased was married to Mst. Parveen Akhtar daughter of his paternal-uncle Suleman. On account of ailing health of Muhammad Boota deceased, Mst. Parveen Akhtar was not prepared to live in his house and she lived in Block No. 24, Sargodha, in the house of her parents.
4. Muhammad Boota deceased, his father Muhammad Ramzan (P.W. 6) and his brother Bashir worked as labourers in the New Vege--table Market, Sargodha. Shaukat Ali alias Pappoo appellant's sister is married to Rehmat Ullah and, therefore, the appellant also lived with his sister and brother-in-law in Block No. 24, Sargodha. He developed illicit liaison with Mst. Parveen who wanted to seek divorce from the deceased. She motivated the appellant to do away with Boota so that she able to contract marriage with him.
On 1st August, 1978 at about 4-00 p.m. Muhammad Boota who was working as labourer in New Vegetable Market, Sargodha, went up stairs on the roof of the second floor of the shop belonging to Habib Ahmad and Abdul Ghafoor in order to urinate. Mohammad Ramzan (P.W. 6) and his other son Bashir were working as labourers at some distance in front of that shop. Abdul Ghafoor (P.W. 8) and Abdul Sattar (P.W. 9) at that time were present on the first floor of the shop. The appellant armed with dagger followed Muhammad Boota deceased to the top of the second floor of the shop. He attacked Muhammad Boota with a dagger and caused injuries in his abdomen, axilla and head. On raising alarm by Muhammad Boota deceased, Abdul Ghafoor and Abdul Sattar P.Ws.
Rushed to the roof of the second floor of the shop and saw the occurrence. Muhammad Ramzan P.
W. And his son Bashir also heard the alarm. They also ran towards the scene of occurrence. They saw the appellant armed with blood--stained dagger coming downstairs. Muhammad Boota deceased informed his father and brother. That he has been assaulted with dagger by the appellant. Muhammad Boota deceased while being taken to hospital for treatment succumbed to the injuries. Muhammad Ramzan (P.W. 6) went to the Police Station, City, Sargodha and lodged the report Exh. P.E. At 5.15 p.m. The report was recorded by Majid Ullah (P. W. 11), the then S. H. O. Police Station, City, Sargodha.
5. After recording the report Exh. P.E. Majid Ullah Inspector went to the spot. He despatched the dead body through a Constable to the mortuary, for autopsy after preparing Injury Statement and Inquest Report. He also secured blood-stained earth from the spot vide memo Ex. P.C. And sealed the same into a parcel. The appellant was arrested by Sahiwal Police and he alongwith blood- stained dagger Ex. P. 3 was produced before Sahiwal Police by Mohammad Sher (P.W. 5) before whom he had also made extra-judicial confession. Site plans Ex.. P.A. And P.A /1 were got prepared by Shah Din Draftsman (P.W. 1). After completing the investigation, Majid Ullah submitted the challan.
6. Dr. Mazhar Rashid, the then Medical Officer, D. H. Q. Hospital, Sargodha, performed the autopsy on the dead body of Muhammad Boota deceased on 2nd August, 1978 'at 3.30 p.m. He noticed one stab wound and three incised wounds on the neck, head, abdomen and axillary region of the deceased.
7. In the opinion of Dr. Mazhar Rashid, the deceased died of heamorrhage and shock as a result of injury No. 3 caused in the abdomen which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries to the deceased were caused by sharp-edged weapon and were antemortem. Exh. P.F. Is the carbon copy of the post-mortem report of this witness. According to Dr. Mazhar Rashid, the deceased could talk for some time after the receipt of injuries but he could not definitely walk. Vide Chemical Examiner's report Exh. P.L. And Radiolo--gist. Report Ex. P. M., the result in regard to blood-stained dagger is in positive. The appellant was allegedly wearing blood- stained clothes when he approached Muhammad Sher (P. W. 5) for extra-judicial confession. In the same clothes he was taken by the said Muhammad Sher (P.W. 5) to Sahiwal Police. The police secured his blood-stained shirt P. 4 and blood-stained Shalwar P. 5 vide memo. Exh. P.D. Which has been attested by Muhammad Sher (P. W. 5). The result of chemical analysis in regard to these clothes also is in positive.
8. The appellant denied of having committed the offence arid pleaded his false involvement on account of enmity. He, however, did not produce any evidence in his defence.
9. Mohammad Ramzan (P.W. 6) the father of Muhammad Boota deceased and the first informant appeared at the trial to testify about the motive and to state that he and his son' were attracted to the scene of occurrence on the alarm raised by the deceased and they saw the appellant coming downstairs armed with blood-stained dagger after causing injuries to the deceased. P. W. 8 Abdul Ghafoor and P. W. 9 Abdul Sattar have appeared as eye-witnesses to give the ocular account of the prosecution version. They have fully supported the prosecution version by their testimonies.
Muhammad Sher (P. W. 5) has been examined to state about the extra-judicial confession and recovery of weapon of offence, viz. Blood-stained dagger P. 3 and the blood-stained clothes i.e. Shirt P. 4 and Shalwar P. 5 from the appellant.
10. Muhammad Ramzan (P.W. 6) has also stated that immediately before death Muhammad Boota deceased had told that he was attacked and injured fatally with dagger. By the appellant.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the F. I. R. In this case was recorded after the preliminary investigation on the spot and that this is an unseen occurrence. He has also maintained that the version of extra-judicial confession and recovery of blood-stained dagger and clothes is unnatural and unbelievable. The F. I. R. Has been promptly lodged after the occurrence.
The occurrence admittedly took place at about 4.00 p.m. While the F. I. R. Has been lodged at the Police Station at 5. 15 p.m. The contention that it has been lodged on the spot after preliminary investigation is without any substance.
12. This is true that the appellant allegedly made extra-judicial confession before Muhammad Sher (P. W. 5) on 4th of August, i.e. 3 days after the occurrence and that he was wearing blood-stained clothes at that time and was carrying the blood-stained aagger with him concealing it under a knee cap. This is highly unusual that during all this period of 3/4 days the appellant continued wearing blood-stained clothes and carried the weapon of offence, viz. The blood-stained dagger all this time with him. Even if we take out of consideration the evidence regarding extra judicial confession and recovery of dagger and blood-stained clothes from the appellant, we are still left with the testimonies of two eye--witnesses namely Abdul Ghafoor and Abdul Sattar who have fully supported the prosecution version as already observed. There is nothing on the record to question the independence of these two witnesses. The are not related to the deceased or the complainant in any manner and have no animosity against the appellant either. Their presence in the office near the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence is quit A natural and probable. This is a broad daylight murder involving a single accused. There are little chances of any substitution or false involvement. In the circumstances, the prosecution with the help of the statements of two independent eye-witnesses has been able to fully bring home the guilt to the appellant without any reasonable doubt.
13. In this view of the matter, the findings of charge having been established against the appellant recorded by, the learned trial Judge are affirmed. His appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed, while his conviction and sentence is maintained.