' This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of Mr. Zia-urRehman learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha whereby he on 10-6-1984 convicted Allah Dad appellant under section 302, P.P.C.
For causing death of Ziad Bukhsh and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.
2. The occurrence took place on 11-3-1983 at 10-00 p.m. In Chak 69/N.B. In the Dera of Khan Muhammad complainant, Police Station Sargodha. The distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station is 15 kilometer. The F.I.R. Is the statement Exh.P.B./1 of Khan Muhammad P.W.
6. a relative of the deceased recorded by Muhammad Khan A.S.I. P.W. 9 at Jhal Chakian on 12-3- 1983 at 1-30 a.m. The formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B. Was drawn up at Police Station by Muhammad Azam P.W.
2 at Police Station, Ssdar Sargodha at 2-00 a.m. On 12-3-1983.
3. The motive as set up by the prosecution was that Allah Dad appellant is the son of Ziad Bukhsh deceased from his first wife. The deceased has daughters from second wife whom he wanted to give in marriage to the opponents of the appellant but the latter did not agree to it, hence this occurrence.
4. The prosecution case is that the complainant Khan Muhammad was present in his Dera situated in Chak No, 69/N.B. Tehsil and District Sargodha on 11-3-1983 at Isha-time. Ziad Bukhsh son of Murad Bukhsh alongwith Sher Muhammad, and Ahmed Ali came to him for purchasing she- buffalo. After Isha prayer Ziad Bukhsh sat on a cot facing towards entrance door while others sat on other cot inside the residential Kotha and starting talking about the bargain of she-buffalo. A lantern was inside the room. After some time, Sultan brother of the complainant also came there from the adjacent Dera. It would be about 10 p.m. When everyone was busy talking about the bargain of the buffalo, Allah Dad appellant armed with 7 mm rifle arrived there and by standing at the entrance door of the Kotha, asked his father Ziad Bukhsh as to why he was giving his sister to opposite party against his wishes. Whereupon Ziad Bukhsh replied that they were his daughters and not that of the appellant. All of a sudden the appellant made a shot from his rifle at Ziad Bukhsh which hit him at his neck. The complainant and others tried to catch the appellant but he threatened them with dire consequences and ran away taking the weapon with him. Ziad Bukhsh succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
5. On 12-3-1983 Dr. Muhammad Raees conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Ziad Bukhsh and found following injuries:--
(1) "A wound of inlet 1 1/2" x 1k" x neck deep/obliquely. Blackening and tattooing were present on left side of neck below left ear.
(2) A wound of exit 2k" x 3" front of neck making a big wound between chin and front of neck."
' In his opinion, the death was due to shock and haerhorrhage as a result of injury No, 1 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The injury was caused by fire-arm. The death was instantaneous. The time between the death and the post-mortem was within 20 hours.
6. The appellant was arrested on 15-3-1983. He got recovered rifle P. 10 from the house of his Phuphizad Muhammad Nawaz, which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.H. Attested by Mukkaram Din P.W.
8. The recovery was effected by Muhammad Khan P.W.
9. It may be noted here that since no crime empty was recovered from spot, the rifle was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination.
7. To prove its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses.Dr. Muhammad Raees P.W. 1 had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Ziad Bukhsh. Khan Muhammad P.W. 6 and Sher Muhammad P.W. 7 have given the ocular account of the occurrence. They claim to have seen Allah Dad appellant firing at Ziad Bukhsh his father with rifle and thereby causing his death.
Mukkaram Din P.W. 8 and Muhammad Khan P.W. 9 have proved the recovery of rifle P. 10 on the potation of the appellant from the house of Muhammad Nawaz his Phuphizad. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.
8. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He raised plea of false implication on account of enmity. He stated that his father had abducted Mst. Fateh Bibi few years back. He had been convicted and sentenced in so many cases including a murder case, as such he had enntity with many and that he was killed by some unknown assailant. He did not produce any witness in defence. He however tendered copy of Jamabandi for the year 1980-81, copy of the order of Magistrate dated 28-5-1958 Exh.D.B. Showing conviction of the deceased, copies of Goshwara of Chak No, 69/N.B. Exh.D.C. To D.F.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that the two eye-witnesses were interested that their statements suffer from material contradictions; that no independent witness from the nearby was produced by the prosecution; that the recovery was effected in violation of the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. And that the prosecution has also failed to prove the alleged motive. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.
10. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant.
Keeping in mind that it is a case where the appellant has not taken any special plea and he has denied all the incriminating circumstances and as such, the entire burden was on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that weakness in and absence of defence, will not strengthen the prosecution case. I have appreciated the case and evidence in the light of the guiding principles laid down by the superior Courts for the appreciation of evidence in such like cases. I find that the F.I.R. Was lodged with promptitude; the occurrence took place at 10 p.m.; F.I.R.
Was lodged at 1-30 a.m. i.e, after 34 hours; the distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station is 15 K.M. There is nothing on the record to indicate that F.I.R. Exh.P.M. Is not genuine document. In the F I R, the name of the appellant who is the solitary accused, the. Names of the witnesses, the weapon used by the appellant and the manner in which the occurrence took place, are mentioned. This genuine document can be used to corroborate the statement of the complainant. I further find that the motive as alleged by the prosecution is also proved by the statement of Khan Muhammad and Sher Muhammad P.Ws. Who have also given the ocular account of the occurrence. Doubtless Khan Muhammad is distantly related. His relationship alone is not sufficient to disregard his statement. Sher Muhammad is an independent witness. The occurrence having taken place in the Dera of Khan Muhammad, he was the natural witness of the occurrence. Sher Muhammad has also given plausible cause of his presence on the spot at the time of occurrence. The appellant was previously known to them and as such there was no difficulty in recognizing the appellant; the witnesses have successfully faced cross-examination.
Except for immaterial and minor discrepancies, I do not see any inherent infirmity in their statements. Their evidence is in consonance with the probabilities. It fits in with the medical evidence. The number of the injuries found on the deceased and the number of the culprits named by the witnesses do commensurate. To my mind, implicit reliance can safely be placed on their testimony. The appellant is the real son of deceased. Had he not caused the death of his father the eye-witnesses would never have involved him in the case. No foundation for the false implication of the appellant in place of the real culprit has been laid down. For all these reasons, the submissions made by the learned counsel do not carry any weight. I am convinced that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under section 302, P.P.C. For the murder of his real father.
The sentence awarded to him is not excessive.
' For what has been stated above, there being no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.