' Iftikhar alias Nanna (17) son of Bashir Ahmad, resident of Mohallah Afghanabad, Faisalabad, was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, under section 302, P.P.C. On the allegation that on 12th July, 1981 at 10-00 a.m. He committed the murder of Muhammad Saeed deceased in the main Bazar of Mohallah Afghanabad, Faisalabad. By judgment, dated 31st August, 1983 he was convicted on the said charge and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs, 10,000 or in default in the payment thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four years.' The fine, if recovered, was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation. The convict has appealed.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 12th July, 1981 at 10-00 a.m. Muhammad Saeed deceased came out of a Hamam situate in the main Bazar, Mohallah Afghanabad, Faisalabad. The appellant who was present outside, raised a Lalkara that the deceased should not be spared and simultaneously gave two Churri blow hitting his chest and abdomen. Muhammad Aslam complainant, father of the deceased, tried to intervene but the appellant threatened him and fled away from the spot taking the Chhuri with him. The deceased was carried to D.H.Q. Hospital, Faisalabad, in a rickshaw but he expired on the way. The complainant then went to Police Station Gulberg and reported the occurrence to Ahmad Khan, S.H.O., at 12 noon vide F . I . R . Exh. P . C .
' The motive for the offence was that the deceased called the brother of the appellant as a catamite and there was an exchange of abuses between the deceased and the appellant on the night preceding the day of occurrence. It is alleged that the appellant harboured grudge against the. Deceased on that score.
3. After recording the F.I.R., Ahmad Khan, S.H.O., reached D.H.Q. Hospital, Faisalabad, and prepared the injury statement (Exh. P.G.) and inquest report (Exh. P.F.) of the dead body and despatched it to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. Then he reached the spot and took blood-stained gunny bag (Exh. P.5) into his possession vide memo. Exh. P.D. It was made into a sealed parcel. The appellant appeared before the S.H.O. At the spot and he arrested him. At the time of arrest the appellant produced blood-stained Chhuri (Exh. P.6) before the S.H.O. Who made it into a sealed parcel vide memo. Exh. P.E. After the investigation, the appellant was challaned.
4. On 12th July, 1981 at 5-30 p.m. Dr. Imtiaz Ahmad Gill, Medical Officer, D.H.Q. Hospital, Faisalabad, conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Muhammad Saeed deceased and found the following injuries on it:-
(1) A stab wound 21/2 c.m. x 4 c.m. On the outer side of left chest, 6 c.m. Below the nipple. This injury was leading into the chest.
(2) A stab wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. On the front of abdomen in the midline, about 6 c.m. Below the umblicus. The omentum was coming out.
' Both the injuries were ante-mortem caused by sharp-edged weapon. In the opinion of the doctor, death was due to shock and haemorrhage. Injury No,1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
5. In support of its case the prosecution examined two eye-witnesses, namely, Muhammad Aslam and Ghulam Rasul. It also relied on the evidence relating to motive and recovery of blood-stained Chhuri from the appellant.
6. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution allegations against him. When asked whether he wanted to say anything else, he made the following statement-- "At the time of occurrence I was aged 151 years.
' On 8-9-1981 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, the complainant counsel had shown my date of birth as 3-9-1965. Ghulam Rasul P.W. Had appeared in the Court of Sessions Judge on 3-7- 1982 and had supported the contents of the affidavit duly sworn by him which is Exh. D.B., stating that he got no knowledge about the occurrence and I produce the certified copy of the order of learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, dated 3-7-1982 which is Exh. D.C. The deceased was a vagabond and he used to roam about almost in naked condition, He also used to take rocket pills and due to his bad habit some unknown person had injured him with a knife. My father was in inimical terms with Khaleefa Saeed and under the influence of said Khaleefa Saeed, I am being falsely implicated in this case so that some bargain will be struck with my father. Aslam P.W. Had also sworn an affidavit in the Court of Sessions that he had applied for the withdrawal of this case which is attached in bail application No, 784/4 of 1982 at page 5."
' The appellant produced a certified copy of the bail order, dated 8th September, 1981 (Exh. D.D.) and closed his defence.
7. The learned trial Judge did not rely on the statement of Ghulam Rasul P.W. But he placed full reliance on the ocular account furnished by Muhammad Aslam complainant and found its corroboration in the evidence relating to motive and recovery of blood-stained Chhuri from the appellant.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that Muhammad Aslam P.W. Is a chance-cam- interested witness and there is no corroborative evidence on the record, therefore, his solitary statement was not sufficient to form the basis of conviction. He further submitted that the occurrence took place in a thickly populated area but no unconnected person was examined as a prosecution witness. The learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that it is the case of a single accused and the occurrence took place in the broad day-light, therefore, the statement of Muhammad Aslam complainant has been rightly relied upon by the trial Court.
9. Evidence of motive was furnished by Muhammad Amjad (P.W.4). He is the real brother of the deceased, but this fact by itself is not sufficient to discard his evidence. He stated that two years and thirteen days prior to his appearance in Court he saw the appellant and the deceased abusing each other. He inquired from the appellant as to why he was quarrelling with the deceased, upon which he replied that he had called his brother as catamite. This statement was not challenged in cross-examination and can, therefore, safely be accepted. Thus, the motive alleged by the prosecution stands fully established.
10. Muhammad Aslam complainant and Ghulam Rasul (P.W.6) furnished the ocular account as detailed in the earlier portion of this judgment. The learned trial Judge did not rely on the statement of Ghulam Rasul on the ground that he had sworn an affidavit (Copy Exh. D.A.) exonerating the appellant and he was resident of a place situate one and a half miles away from the spot. These oLservations have the support of evidence and I am satisfied that his evidence was rejected for sufficient reasons.
11. Muhammad Aslam P.W. Is the father of the deceased. He cannot be termed as an interested witness merely for the reason that he is related to the deceased. An interested witness is one who has a motive C to falsely implicate the accused. In the instant case there is nothing to show that the complainant had any such motive. The occurrence took place in the main Bazar of Mohallah Afghanabad. The complainant is the resident of the same Mohallah. ,He has stated that he had gone to the Bazar for purchasing vegetables when he saw the occurrence. The D occurrence having taken place in the Bazar, the shopkeepers and persons present there for shopping would be the natural witnesses of occurrence. Muhammad Aslam complainant was cross-examined at length but nothing useful to the defence could be elicited from his statement. He seems to be a straightforward person. He frankly admitted that all the shopkeepers had gathered at the spot and seen the occurrence. However, the mere fact that no shopkeeper was produced as a prosecution witness, is not sufficient to reject the prosecution version. It is a matter of common knowledge that unconnected persons generally hesitate to come forward as prosecution witnesses, particularly in a murder case, for obvious reasons. The occurrence took place in the broad daylight and it is the case of a single accused. It is unbelievable that the real culprit was let off and the appellant was falsely implicated. In such cases the G evidence of even an interested witness can safely be accepted for the reason that substitution is a rare phenomenon. The documents Exh. D.C. And Exh.
D.D., produced by the appellant, are bail orders, dated 3-7-1982 and 8-9-1981, respectively. Exh. D.C.
Shows that Ghulam Rasul P.W. And Muhammad Rafiq (not produced) had sworn affidavits to the effect that they did not know anything about the occurrence. The order (Exh. D.D.) shows that the complainant's counsel had shown the birth certificate of the appellant to the Sessions Judge, according to which his date of birth was the 3rd of September, 1965. These documents do not advance the case of the defence at all.
12. After giving my -careful consideration to the evidence and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the appellant was rightly convicted for the murder of Muhammad Saeed. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.