' Ahmad Khan aged 25 years has filed this appeal through jail against his conviction by learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha vide order dated 11th April, 1983. He was sentenced under section 302, P.P.C. To imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs, 5,000 or in default two years' R.I. For intentional murder of Ashiq Hussain deceased aged 20 years.
2. In brief the facts are that on 15th October, 1980, Ahmad Khan accused called Ashiq Hussain deceased from his house requesting him that he (the deceased) should accompany him to bring fodder from his land. The prosecution case is that at that time Ahmad Khan accused was armed with a hatchet. The deceased accompanied him. Ahmad Khan gave a hatchet blow to the deceased and then threw him on the railway track as a result of which he was crushed under the wheels of Chenab Express, which stopped as a result thereof. On hearing the alarm of people, Mst.
Rehmat Bibi mother of Ashiq Hussain deceased who had her house near the railway track rushed to that side and found the dead body of her son lying there. She suspected Ahmad Khan accused having killed her son on account of his illicit relations with Mst. Kaneezan P.W. Wife of Ashiq Hussain deceased. She went to P. S. Sadar Sargodha and lodged F.I.R. Exh. P.E. The police, after registration of the case, undertook investigation. Ahmad Khan accused was arrested on 22nd October, 1980. On 26th October, 1980, the accused led the police to a stack of Bhoosa in a field and got recovered blood-stained hatchet which was taken in possession vide memo. Exh. P.J. He also got recovered his blood-stained Shalwar P. 4 from the same place which was taken in possession vide memo.
Exh. P.K. Both these recovery memos. Were prepared by Masood Aziz S. I. P.W. 8 and attested by Ghaus Mohammad P.W. 11 and Ghulam Mohammad P.W. (not examined). Besides this the police collected the evidence of extra-judicial confession which was allegedly made by Ahmad Khan accused before Inayat Ullah P. W. 10, the last seen evidence which was provided by Ghaus Mohammad, a nephew of Mst. Rehmat Bibi P. W. And also by Mst. Kaneezan P.W. 9 wife of the deceased. Mst. Rehmat Bibi P.W. 7 had also seen the deceased going out of the house with Ahmad Khan accused who had hatchet in his hand. Then there is the evidence of motive which has been provided by both Mst. Rehmat Bibi P. W. 7 and Mst. Kaneezan Bibi P.W.
9. There is also the evidence of Dr. Mohammad Khan Malik P.W. 1 who had conducted the post- mortem examination on the dead body of Ashiq Hussain. He found severe injuries on the dead body. Injury No, 1 was an incised wound on right parietal region 13 c.m. x 14 c.m. x bone deep which was cut underneath. According to this witness, injury No, 1 had been caused by a sharp-edged weapon. The rest of the injuries which had blackish oil around them were caused with accident with the moving railway vehicle. In the opinion of Dr. Mohammad Khan Malik P.W. 1, injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were individually and collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of life. Injury No, 2 indicated that the dead body had been cut into pieces. The rest of the witnesses are of formal nature. The accused when examined denied the charge, pleaded innocence and did not produce any evidence in defence.
4. I have gone through the entire evidence with the assistance of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at State expense. The evidence of Dr. Mohammad Khan Malik clearly establishes the fact that Ashiq Hussain deceased had two kinds of injuries. Injuriy No, 1 was the result of hatchet blow while other injuries were caused by an accident with railway wagon etc: This fact is further supported by the inquest report Exh. P.F. In this documentalso, one injury on the head of the deceased was noted to have been caused by a hatchet. Thus, it is proved that the deceased did not die just because of some accident on the railway track but he also died on account of injury No, 1 by a sharp-edged weapon on his head which was individually fatal in the ordinary course of life. Mst. Rehmat Bibi P.W. 7 and Mst. Kaneezan P.W. 9 though related to the deceased being mother and wife, respectively, have no enmity with Ahmad Khan accused. They both stated that Ahmad Khan accused armed with a hatchet came to their house and took away the deceased on the pretext of bringing fodder, a short while before the stoppage of train. Mst.
Kaneezan further stated that after the train had stopped, Ahmad Khan accused again came to her and asked her to accompany him. At that time, Ahmad Khan was having blood-stained hatchet in his hamid. This is again a very strong piece of evidence against Ahmad Khan. Both the witnesses also stated about the motive of the occurrence. The accused had divorced his wife about a year before the present occurrence and he wanted to have illicit relations with Mst. Kaneezan P.W. This fact has been stated in detail by her. The prosecution case is thus supported by the evidence of Mst. Rehmat Bibi and Mst. Kaneezan in to to. Ghaut Mohammad P.W. Is a -Wajtakkar witness who has seen Ahmad Khan accused having hatchet in his hand going with Ashiq Huassin deceased. He also witnessed the recoveries from the accused. He is no doubt related to Mst. Rehmat Bibi but the accused is also related to Mst.. Rehmat Bibi Thus, this fact alone is not enough to discard his evidence. In this case, the F.I.R. Was lodged very promptly. There is nothing to indicate as to why Ahmad Khan was falsely implicated. There was no time to think over the matter for fabrication of case against the accused. I am satisfied that the prosecution has fully established its case by the medical evidence, the evidence of last seen together of the accused and the deceased, the evidence of recovery and the motive. So far as the evidence of Inayat Ullah P.W. Is concerned, it does not inspire confidence. The accused allegedly made extra-judicial confession before him on 16th or 17th October, 1980, but he was examined by the police on 19th October, 1980. I, therefore, reject his evidence. As discussed above, the prosecution has proved its case against Ahmad Khan appellant without any shadow of doubt. This appeal has no merits which is accordingly dismissed.
4. The result is that. The conviction and sentence of the accused is maintained.