1. ' Arshad Mahmood son of Rafiq Ahmad (14 at the time of trial), resident of Chak No, 213/G. B., Tehsil Samundri, was tried for the murder of Mst. Noor Bibi, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad.
2. The trial Judge, by judgment, dated 4th September, 1982 convicted him under section 302, P. P. C.
3. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs, 5,000 ; or, in default two years, R. I.
4. ' The convict has filed appeal against his conviction and the compplainant a revision. The former prays for acquittal ; the latter seeks enhancement of the sentence from life to death. This judgment shall dispose of both the matters.
5. ' The occurrence was alleged to have taken place on 29th February, 1980 at 7-30 a. m., in an lhata, in Chak No, 2I3/G. B. Which falls within the jurisdiction of Police Station SamUndri.
6. ' Case against the appellant was registered on the statement of Faqir Ullah, husband of the deceased. It was recorded by Syed Zamir Hussain Shah, A. S.-I. On the basis of statement (Exh. P.
7. E./1), formal F. I. R. (Exh. P. E.) was registered at the aforesaid Police Station.
8. ' The motive for the incident was that Arshad Mahmood and his servant Nukra belaboured Jamil son of Mst. Noor Bibi and their servant Khadim. Both complained about this to Faqir Utah and his wife Mst. Noor Bibi.
9. ' On the day of occurrence, Noor Bibi came out of her house to dispose of the garbage. Arshad Mahmood also came out from his Ihata. Noor Bibi complained to him about the incident regarding her servant and son. Arshad Mahmood abused her. She also abused Arshad Mahmood. The appellant took out knife and gave two blows to Noor Bibi.
10. ' The occurrence was alleged to have been seen by Faqir Ullah, Ghulam Haider, Yousaf and Noor Ullah. Only Faqir Ullah was examined. The remaining three were given up as having been won over by the accused. The other evidence is the recovery of Knife P. 3 which was found to be stained with human blood by the Serologist, and the post-mortem report of the deceased.
11. ' Faqir Ullah, first of all, deposed about the motive which has been referred to above. He said that he heard some noise and came out of the house. Within his sight Arshad Mahmood took out a knife from his pocket. He gave two blows to Noor Bibi ; one on her right shoulder and the other on the back side of left shoulder. She fell down. Ghulam Haider, Yousaf and Noor Ullah also witnessed the occurrence. The accused ran away with the knife. Noor Bibi died after a short while.
12. ' Arshad Mahmood was arrested on 2nd March, 1980. He produced blood-stained knife P. 3 before the police. It was taken into possession and was sealed into a parcel vide memo. P. H. The memo.
13. Was attested by Noor Ullah and Manzoor Ahmad. Both the recovery witnesses were not produced by the prosecution.
14. ' On 29th February, 1980 Dr. Ghulam Rasul, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Samundri, conducted the post-mortem examination of Noor Bibi. He found the following injuries :-
(1) A stab wound 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. x 12 c.m. Upon the front and inner side of right shoulder and front of right half of chest cutting inter costal muscle of right first inter costal space and upper half of right second rib. Pleura and upper lobe of right lung were also cut.
(2) A stab wound 2i c.m. x 1 c.m. x entering into chest cavity, upon back of left side of chest passing through left scapula bone cutting inter costal muscle of fifth left inter costal space and pleura on left side.
15. ' Both the injuries were ante-mortem ; grievous and were caused by a sharppedged weapon. In the opinion of doctor, injury No, I was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
16. ' The appellant denied the allegations. He said that knife did not belong to him. The case was registered against him due to enmity between his family and the family of the deceased. He further said that Noor Bibi was keeping her son Muhammad Jamil out of previous husband. The brothers of Noor Bibi and her sons from first husband wanted to take away Muhammad Jamil. On the day of occurrence an altercation took place between the deceased, her sons and brothers. She was injured in that incident. The appellant further said that he was not present. He had been roped in due to enmity.
17. ' The appellant produced attested copies of school leaving certificate (Exh. D. B.), nikahnama of Noor Bibi with Faqir Ullah (Exh. D. C.) and Jamabandi Sakni of Chak 213/G. B. (Exh. D. D.) and Exh. D. E.
18. Death certificate of one Ali Muhammad son of Karim Bakhsh, Gujjar, Labourer, of Chak 213/G. B.
19. ' Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant laid great stress on the fact that no independent eye-witness was examined. He said that even those whose names had been mentioned in the calendar of witnesses were given up at the last minute. Learned counsel further submitted that even those witnesses who attested the recovery were given up. The only evidence was that of husband of the deceased. He would, naturally, be an interested person. Learned counsel challenged the presence of Faqir Ullah on the spot and submitted that he was not there.
20. Learned counsel submitted that, anyhow, the evidence of Fair Ullah was not sufficient in law to maintain the conviction.
21. ' Last of all, learned counsel submitted that at the time of occurrence, the appellant was hardly fourteen. He deserves leniency in the quantum of sentence.
22. ' I have also heard learned counsel for the State as well as for the complainant.
23. There is no provision in law which makes it mandatory that conviction cannot either be recorded or maintained on the solitary statement of an eye-witness. The law lays stress on the quality of the evidence and not on its volume. Faqir Ullah is the husband of the deceased. On this ground alone his evidence is not to be discarded. I have to make sure as to whether he was present when the alleged occurrence took place and whether he told the truth. If his evidence inspires confidence then the conviction has been rightly recorded.
24. For that matter, I have gone through his evidence with the help of the learned counsel. I have not come across anything which would even suggest that he was falsely deposing or had any animus to involve the appellant for the murder of his wife. I am, therefore, of the view that his evidence is sufficient in law to maintain the conviction.
25. ' I have gone through the documents produced by the appellant. They are not helpful to him.
26. The next question is whether the appellant deserves any reduction in the sentence on the ground of age. I don't think it is so. If I have to take into consideration the factum of his age then side by side I have to also take notice of the fact that the victim in this case was an innocent woman. This aspect nullifies the plea of tender age.
27. ' In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall, however, be given the concession under section 382-B, Cr. P. C. i,e, the period of his detention shall be deducted from the term of his imprisonment.
28. ' The amount of fine shall be paid in full to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation. The Collector concerned is directed to take immediate steps for realization of the amount and its payment.
29. ' The revision filed by the complainant has no merit. It is dismissed in limine.