' GULBAZ KHAN, J.-- Muhammad Javed aged 22 years, Muhammad Amin aged 22 years and Muhammad Ashraf aged 17 years, residents of Daska were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot, for offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. For committing the murder of Muhammad Ejaz. The three appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rupees two thousand each or in default in payment of fine to undergo further R.I. For six months, vide judgment, dated 12-3- 1980. Half of the fine, if recovered, was ordered to be paid to the father of the deceased, named, Abdul Majid. The three convicts filed an appeal against the impugned judgment. Muhammad Ashfaq complainant filed revision petition for the enhancement of sentences of the three convicts but it was admitted against Muhammad Javed and Muhammad Ashraf only.
2. Muhammad Ashfaq complainant (P.W.11) and his brother Muhammad Ejaz deceased were going to the Court of Assistant Commissioner, Daska, on 8-4-1979 at about 8-15 a.m. The deceased was going ahead of the complainant by 10/15 Karams. When the deceased reached near the wooden cabin of lqbal, vegetable seller, in Chowk Committee Ghar, he was attacked by Muhammad Javed, Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Ashraf appellants, who were armed with Chhuris. Muhammad Javed appellant inflicted Chhuri blow to the deceased on the left arm followed by Muhammad Amin appellant which hit the deceased on the left arm. The deceased caught hold of Muhammad Amin appellant, whereupon, Muhammad Javed inflicted another blow to the deceased near the left arm-pit. Muhammad Ashraf appellant caused injury to the deceased on the back side of the chest with Chhuri. The deceased ran towards the house of Abdur Rehman (the husband of his aunt) and fell down in Gall Tar Ghar. The occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Ashfaq complainant, Abdur Rahim (P.W.12), Muhammad Riaz (P.W.13), Muhammad Munir and Muhammad Bashir (both not produced). After the occurrence the three appellants had fled away. The deceased was placed on a cot in an injured condition and taken to Civil Hospital, Daska, where he succumbed to the injuries.
3. About 20 days prior to the occurrence, the deceased had a quarrel with the three appellants at a Qawali session in the house of Muhammad Ismail Butt and in that occurrence, the deceased had given fist blows to Muhammad Javed appellant but were separated by Sabir Hussain (P.W.10) and Tariq (not produced). The appellant had threatened the deceased that they would avenge the insult.
4. Muhammad Yusuf, A.S.I., Incharge Police Station Daska, came to know of the occurrence at Bus Stand Daska. On reaching the spot, he learnt that the deceased had been taken to Civil Hospital Daska. He deputed Bashir, Foot Constable, to guard the spot and himself reached Civil Hospital, Daska where he recorded the statement of Muhammad Ashfaq P.W. He prepared injury statement and inquest report of the deceased and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He collected blood-stained earth from the place where the deceased had fallen and sealed it into a parcel. He took into possession blood-stained clothes of the deceased.
' Muhammad Yusuf A.S.I. Raided the house of Muhammad Javed appellant on 11-4-1979 and took into possession blood-stained shirt Exh.P.7 from the roof of his house. It was sealed into a parcel. He arrested the appellants on 15-4-1979. Muhammad Javed, Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Ashraf appellants produced blood-stained Chhuri each, on 18-4-1979, from the graveyard which were sealed into parcels. Separate memos. Were prepared for those recoveries, which were attested by Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.8) and Muhammad Ramzan (not produced). The three Chhuris were found to be stained with human blood vide reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist.
5. Dr. Mumtaz Ahmad Bhatti conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Ejaz, on 8-4-1979 at 2-30 p.m. He found two incised wounds, two stab wounds and two abrasions on the person of the deceased. Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were on the front of left fore-arm and back of left fore-arm. The injuries were through and through. Injury No, 3 was a stab wound on the lower part of left axilla. Injury No, 4 was a stab wound on the back of left chest.
' Left lung was ruptured and third rib and pleura were cut under injury No,
3. Pleura and sixth rib were cut and left lobe of left lung was punctured through and through and opening in the hilum of the left lung cutting the main blood vessels under injury No,4. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to shock and hemorrhage on account of injuries Nos. 3 and 4 whip were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante-mortem. Injuries Nos. 1 to 4 were caused with sharp-edged stabbing weapon while injuries Nos. 5 and 6 with blunt weapon.
Injury No, 3 was grievous while injury No, 4 was dangerous to life. Rest of the injuries were simple.
The time between injuries and death was within few minutes and between death and post- mortem 64 houRs,
6. The three eye-witnesses produced at the trial, namely, Muhammad Ashfaq (P.W.11), Abdur Rahim (P.W.12) and Muhammad Riaz (P.W.13) fully supported the prosecution version. They involved the three appellants in their statements. According to them, all the three appellants, who were armed with Chhuris, inflicted blows to the deceased. One of the blows of Muhammad Javed landed on the left arm while the other under the left arm-pit. The blow inflicted by Muhammad Amin appellant hit the deceased on the left arm. Muhammad Ashraf appellant caused injury to the deceased on the back with Chhuri. It was further stated by the three eye-witnesses that besides them, the occurrence had also been witnessed by Muhammad Bashir and Muhammad Munir. They further stated that the deceased fell near the house of the husband of his aunt in Gali Tar Ghar.
7. Besides the complainant, Sabir Hussain (P.W.10) supported the motive. Muhammad Asghar (P.W.9) supported the recovery of bloodstained shirt from the roof of the house of Muhammad Java appellant and Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.8) supported the recoveries of blood-stained Chhuris from the appellants.
8. The appellants were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. All of them admitted that about a month prior to the occurrence, they had a quarrel with Muhammad Ejaz deceased during a Qawali session in the house of Muhammad Ismail Butt and they had exchanged hot words with the deceased and in the heat of passion they might have proclaimed that they would avenge the insult. They denied to have committed the murder of Muhammad Ejaz. They also did not admit the recoveries. They attributed the case to suspicion and enmity. They did not lead any evidence in defence.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the occurrence had not taken place near the wooden cabin of Muhammad Iqbal, vegetable seller, in Chowk Committee Ghar but it had taken place in Gali Tar Ghar where the deceased was alleged to have fallen down. Alternatively, it was argued that none from the eye-witnesses had seen the occurrence and if the occurrence had taken place in the manner as stated by the eye-witnesses, they could not have allowed the deceased to travel a distance of 530 feet and would have given him support near the place of occurrence. It was further contended that if the occurrence had taken place at point 'A', the police would have collected blood-stained earth from there. It was also contended that the case was not fixed in the Court of Assistant Commissioner, Daska, on 8-4-1979, in which the deceased and the complainant were accused and the complainant invented an excuse of going to the Court of Assistant Commissioner, Daska; that the conduct of the eye-witnesses at the spot was unnatural; that the dimensions of injuries Nos. 3 and 4 showed that the same weapon and the same person had inflicted those injuries; that for four injuries three accused had been involved and one injury each had been attributed to Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Ashraf and two to Muhammad Javed and it was evident from the number of injuries that the number of the accused had been exaggerated; that the statement of the complainant had been recorded after the post-mortem examination as the seats of injuries, inflicted by the three appellants, had not been given in the inquest report; that Muhammad Riaz P.W. Had a connection with the family of the complainant and at the same time was a chance witness; that the recoveries of blood-stained Chhuris were not proved; and that the appellants were entitled to acquittal as it was an witnessed occurrence.
10. The learned counsel for the State submitted that there was sufficient material for upholding the judgment of the trial Court. He argued that the prosecution case was supported by the evidence furnished by disinterested and natural witnesses.
11. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that it was a fit case for awarding death sentences to Muhammad Javed and Muhammad Ashraf appellants as they had inflicted blows to the deceased on the vital parts of the body with Chhuris which were deadly weapons.
12. It was a day time occurrence. According to the eye-witnesses, the occurrence had taken place at about 8 a.m. In Chowk Committee Ghar. On the receipt of information, Muhammad Yusuf A.S.I.
Reached Civil Hospital, Daska. He completed the statement of Muhammad Ashfaq at 9 a.m. The formal F.I.R. Was recorded at 9-15 a.m. The case had been registered with promptitude. There was no time for deliberation and concoction of a false version. Since the occurrence had taken place in the Bazar, the complainant could not think of involving innocent persons. Prior to the occurrence, Muhammad Nawaz got a case registered against the deceased, the complainant, their father and otheRs, The challan was, however, submitted against the deceased and the complainant. Another case was registered against the deceased and the complainant at the instance of one Meraj Din. If it had been an unwitnessed occurrence, the complainant would have chosen to involve Muhammad Nawaz and Meraj Din, the informants of the aforesaid two cases, but he did not do so and made a correct report. The statement of the complainant could not be rejected on the sole ground of relation with the deceased. The statement of the complainant was corroborated by the disinterested evidence furnished by Abdur Rahim and Muhammad Riaz P.W. Abdur Rahim was absolutely a disinterested witness and natural at the same time. He was selling vegetables near the spot of occurrence. Muhammad Riaz was another disinterested witness. He was purchasing vegetables from Abdur Rahim P.W. He remained in the employment of Abdul Majid (father of the deceased) for 18 or 20 days but he gave it up. We are not persuaded to hold that he was an interested witness for the sole reason that he remained in employment of the father of the deceased for 18 or 20 days. We did not come across any inherent defect in the statements of the three eye-witnesses. We did not find any contradiction or discrepancy in the statements of the eye-witnesses. Although the statements of the three eye-witnesses did not require any independent corroboration, yet their statements received corroboration from medical evidence as well as the motive. After having considered the statements of the three eye-witnesses, we hold that those statements inspire confidence and implicit reliance can be placed on those statements.
13. No question was put to any of the eye-witnesses that they did not notice the trail of blood in between points A and H. The Draftsman had given a note that blood had been noticed at places shown as 'G' in between points A and H. The deceased had started running towards the house of the husband of his aunt and hence the blood could not have been found at point 'A'. The complainant had offered an explanation that the clerk of the counsel had wrongly informed him and the deceased that 8th April, 1979 was the date in the case and for that reason they were going to the Court of Assistant Commissioner, Daska. It was a plausible explanation. The complainant had given another explanation of passing through Chowk Committee Ghar by stating that the deceased had to take along with him his cousin and for that reason the said route was adopted.
We find little force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the eye- witnesses had made exaggeration regarding the number of the accused and that injuries Nos. 3 and 4 had been caused by the same person with the same weapon. The A.S.I. Was not required to give the details of the injuries in the inquest report as given by the complainant in his statement (Exh. P.B.). From the omission of the seats of the injuries, inflicted by each accused, we cannot hold that the statement of the complainant (Exh.P.B.) had been recorded after the post-mortem examination.
14. Muhammad lqbal (P.W.8) deposed about the recoveries of bloodstained Chhuris at the instance of the three appellants. Even if it be admitted that Muhammad Ejaz deceased and Muhammad Ashfaq were co-accused with Muhammad Iqbal in a case registered at the instance of Rana Muhammad Arshad Advocate, it could not validly be argued that Muhammad lqbal was an interested witness against the appellants. Besides Muhammad lqbal, Muhammad Yusuf, A.S.I. Had also deposed about the recoveries of blood-stained Chhuris at the instance of the three appellants. The Chhuris were found to be stained with human blood. We have no reason to disagree with the finding of the trial Court in respect of these recoveries.
15. After having considered the material on record and the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants for the reasons stated above, we are satisfied that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the case against the three appellants beyond doubt. We, however, do not agree with the reasoning given by the trial Court for awarding lesser sentence. The trial Court had given two reasons for withholding the sentence of death, firstly, that except Muhammad Javed, the other accused inflicted one injury each and secondly, the accused were aged 17 and 22 yeaRs, Muhammad Javed was aged 21 years while Muhammad Ashraf was about 16 years at the time of occurrence. Age is no ground for awarding lesser sentence. Each case is to be determined on its own merits. The doctor stated in Court that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of injuries Nos. 3 and 4. He did not state that injuries Nos. 3 and 4 were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The death was on account of the accumulative effect of injuries Nos. 3 and 4. Since none of the injuries was individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, we do not feel inclined to enhance the sentence of Muhammad Javed and Muhammad Ashraf appellants.
16. The appeal, filed by Muhammad Javed, Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Ashraf, is dismissed.
They shall, however, be given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. And the period spent by them as under-trial prisoners shall be counted towards their sentences.
17. The revision petition, filed by Muhammad Ashfaq for the enhancement of sentences of Muhammad Javed and Muhammad Ashraf, is also dismissed.