' Iqbal alias Barroo (19) son of Bashir Ahmad, caste Sheikh, resident of Jaranwala, District Faisalabad, was tried by the Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs, 2,000 or in default in the payment thereof to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The fine, if realised was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The convict has appealed. Mst. Naziran, mother of the deceased, has filed Criminal Revision No, 517 of 1980 praying that the sentence of the convict be enhanced to death. Both these matters shall be disposed of by this judgment.
2. The occurrence took place in Jaranwala Town. The prosecution version is that on 29th September, 197S at 9-15 p.m. Nasir Javid deceased and his grand-father Inayat complainant were returning home from truck-stand when the appellant armed with a knife confronted them near Municipal Dispensary. He threw a challenge on Nasir Javid deceased that he would teach him a lesson for the beating given to him at Mela Moharanwala. Simultaneously, he gave a knife blow on the chest of the deceased and repeated three more blows which landed on his ribs, as a result of which he fell down. Inayat complainant tried to catch the accused but he ran away taking the knife with him, The occurrence was also witnessed by Mehar Din P.W. and Muhammad Hussain (since dead). The deceased was taken to the hospital but on reaching there he breathed his last.
' The motive alleged by the prosecution is that 4/5 days prior to the occurrence there was quarrel between the appellant who is a tonga driver and the deceased, at Mela Moharanwala, over the payment of tonga-fare. The deceased slapped the appellant. This incident was witnessed by Allah Rakha P.W. and Muhammad Aslam (not produced).
' Leaving the dead body in the hospital, Inayat complainant went to Police Station Jaranwala and reported the occurrence to Abaidullah Khan, S.H.O., at 10-00 p.m. vide F.I.R. Exh. P.D.
3. After recording the F.1.R., the S.H.O. went to Civil Hospital, Jaranwala and prepared the injury statement (Exh. P.G.) and inquest report (Exh. P.H.) of the deceased and handed over the dead body to Muhammad Anwcr F.C. for escorting the same to the mortuary. On 30th September, 1978 he went to the spot and secured some blood-stained earth which was made into a sealed parcel vide memo Exh. P.E. On the same day he arrested the accused. On 1st October, 1978 the accused led to the recovery of blood-stained knife which was made into sealed parcel vide memo Exh. P.F.
After the investigation, the accused was challaned.
4. On 30th September, 1978 at 6-30 a.m. Dr. Khurshid ,Ahmad, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jaranwala conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Nasir Javid and found the following injuries on it;-
(1) A penetrating wound 1" x 1" on front of left chest 2" below left nipple.
(2) Penetrating wound 1" x 1" outer side of left chest.
(3) Penetrating wound 1" x 1" close to injury No,2.
(4) Penetrating wound 11" x 1" below injury No,3.
(5) A stab wound 11" x 1" x muscle deep on back of right chest.
' Left pleura and 6th rib on the left side of chest were cut. Left lung heart and peritoneum were. penetrated. Diaphragm was cut. In the opinion of the doctor death was due to shock and haemorrhage and injuries to lung and heart. Injuries No, 1 to 4 were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
5. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution allegations against him. He produced defence evidence to show that the deceased was involved in a number of criminal cases.
6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined two eye- witnesses, namely, Inayat complainant and Mehar Din P.W.7. It also relied on the evidence relating to motive and recovery.
7. The learned trial Judge accepted the prosecution evidence against the appellant and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the motive alleged by the prosecution has not been proved, the recovery is fake, Inayat P.W. being the grandfather of the deceased is an interested witness and the ocular evidence is not supported by the medical evidence.
9. The prosecution examined Allah. Rakha (P.W.9) as a witness of the motive. He stated that 4/5 days prior to the occurrence there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased over the payment of Tonga-fare and the deceased slapped the appellant who threw a challenge that he would take revenge. The learned counsel pointed out a dis crepancy in the statements of Allah Rakha (P.W.9) and the Investigating Officer (P.W.10) to contend that the motive was not proved. The Investigating Officer stated that he summoned Allah Rakha P.W. on 30th September, 1978, i.e, on the next day of the occurrence, but Allah Rakha P.W. gave out that he was summoned by the police station four/five days after the occurrence and then his statement was recorded. The learned counsel submitted that if the statement of Allah Rakha P.W. is accepted, then he is a witness of late appearance and his evidence cannot be accepted. I do not feel persuaded to agree with this submission. In the which was lodged without gaining any time for deliberation, Allah Rakha P.W. is named as a witness of the motive. He entered the witness-box about one year and five months after the occurrence. In the circumstances, no importance can be attached to the discrepancy referred to above. He is an independent witness having no motive to falsely implicate the appellant in a case involving capital punishment.
10. Inayat and Mehar Din P.Ws. supported the prosecution version as detailed in the earlier portion of this judgment. Inayat P.W. is the grandfather of the deceased but this fact by itself is not sufficient to discard his evidence as worthless. Mehar Din P.W. is an unconnected person having no relationship with the deceased nor any motive to falsely implicate the appellant. Inayat was accompanying the deceased to his house from the truck stand while Mehar Din had come out of his house situate forty Karams away from the spot for purchasing milk. In the circumstances, their presence at the spot was not unnatural.
' It was contended that Inayat P.W. did not raise alarm and his conduct was highly unnatural. Being an old fellow and real grandfather of the deceased he may have been flabergasted on seeing the appellant giving fatal blows to his grandson. The mere fact that he did not raise alarm is no ground to throw away his evidence.
' Both the eye-witnesses stated that the appellant gave four blows to the deceased but the medical evidence shows that the deceased had five injuries. The eye-witnesses were not expected to count the blows and in any case, this minor discrepancy cannot impair the evidentiary value of their statements. They were cross-examined at length but nothing useful to the defence could be elicited from their statements. In this case the F.I.R. was lodged promptly within 45 minutes of the occurrence naming the appellant as the sole assailant of the deceased. It is true that the deceased was involved in a number of cases, but this fact by itself is not sufficient to show that some other person had committed his murder. If it had been so, there was no earthly reason for the complainant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate the appellant in this case. In the circumstances, the appellant has been rightly convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and I uphold his conviction.
11. It is prosecution's own case that the deceased had slapped the appellant a few days prior to the occurrence. The trial Judge awarded lesser sentence on the ground that the deceased had provided a cause of grouse to the appellant by giving him beating in the Mela. The element of provocation due to that incident coupled with the fact that at the time of occurrence the appellant was a teen-ager (between 17-18 years) is a mitigating circumstance justifying the award of lesser penalty. At this stage it need also be mentioned that nobody appeared to prosecute the criminal revision.
12. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He shall be arrested forthwith and sent to jail to serve out the unexpired portion of his sentence. Criminal Revision No, 517 of 1980 also fails and is dismissed.