' Sana Ullah, son of Khan Muhammad aged 45, armed with knife, has been convicted under section 302, P.P.C. For the murder of Muhammad Aslam, aged 45, and vide judgment, dated 12-5-1981 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, he was sentenced to life imprisonment plus fine of Rs,3,000 or in default to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. His appeal is being disposed of by this judgment.
2. The occurrence took place at 7-15 a.m. On 29-3-1977 in the Darbar of Hazrat Jamal within the area of village Hazrat, Kelianwala at a distance of five miles from Police Station, Alipur Chatha, Tehsil Wazirabad, District Gujranwala. Written statement (Exh.P.C.) was presented by Sahibzada Karamat Ali(P.W.7), one of the eye-witnesses, of the occurrence and Sajjada Nashin of the said Darbar, at 8-15 a.m. On the same day, to Hakim Ali S.I. (P.W.9) at the police station and on the basis of the said statement formal F.I.R. (Exh.P.C/1) was registered at the police station at the same time and date by Hakim Ali S.I., P.W.
3. In the F.I.R. The occurrence is reported to have taken place in the following manner: On the fateful day, while Sahibzada Karamat Ali (P.W.7) and Ghulam Ali (P.W.5) were about to take bath in the bath-rooms of the Darbar mosque and Ali Muhammad (P.W.6) was pouring water for them, they heard cries of the deceased who was sweeping in the Darbar. They came out of the bath-rooms and rushed towards the scene of crime and saw that the appellant had got the deceased fallen down on the ground and was giving him successive blows with a knife. On seeing the aforesaid three eye-witnesses the appellant also threatened them and thereafter waving his knife ran away from the scene of crime. The deceased died on the spot. Leaving Ghulam Ali and Ali Muhammad P.Ws to guard the dead body. Sahibzada Karamat Ali P.W. Presented a written statement to Hakim All S.I. P.W. At the police station in respect of the occurrence on the basis of which the formal F.I.R.
Was recorded.
4. A perusal of the F.I.R. Indicates that there are three eye- witnesses produced by the prosecution namely, Sahibzada Karamat Ali (P.W.7), Ghulam Ali (P.W.5) and Ali Muhammad (P.W.6). -None of these eye-witnesses is related to the deceased. So far as Ghulam All and All Muhammad P.Ws are concerned, they resided from their statements at the trial stage and were declared hostile. Ghulam Ali P.W. Had stated that at the time of the occurrence he was at his well and, therefore, he did not know anything about the occurrence. He stated that he did not know who had murdered the deceased. Upon this he was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the A.P.P. So far as Ali Muhammad P.W. Is concerned, he stated that at the fateful time he was present in his village. He heard a Raula and went to the spot where police was present. He stated that he had not seen the occurrence. Thereupon he was also declared hostile and was cross-examined by the A.P.P. Since both these eye-witnesses had resided from their earlier statements made before the police and were declared hostile at the trial stage, no importance can be attached to their testimony in respect of the A occurrence. However, there remains in the field the testimony of Sahibzada Karamat Ali (P.W.7) who has supported the prosecution version.
5. The appellant was arrested on 29-3-1977 by Hakim Ali S.I. (P.W.9). At his instance was recovered knife (Exh.P.5) which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.K. At the time of his arrest blood- stained clothes of the appellant were got removed from his person, namely, Kameez (Exh.P.6), Chadar (Exh.P.7) and Parna (Exh.P.8) and these were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.L. All these recoveries were effected on 29-3-1977 and these are witnessed by Hakim Ali, S.I. (P.W.9), Amanat All Shah (not produced) and Muhammad. Boota (not produced). It may be pointed out at this stage that the report of the Chemical Examiner only is on the file to the effect that all the aforesaid articles were found to be stained with blood. But there is no report of the Serologist on the record to indicate as whether the said blood was human or not. In that view of the matter, the recovery evidence, in the instant case, which is only being supported by Hakim Ali, S.I. P.W. Is not of much worth.
6. The appellant in his statement before the trial Court totally denied having participated in the occurrence. He disowned the recoveries and stated that he had been falsely implicated due to enmity as there were numerous inimical factions in the village. He pleaded innocence but did not produce any defence.
7. Dr. Imtiaz Ali Cheema (P.W.8) conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and found on his person eight incised wounds on the chest, clavicle joint, right upper abdomen, below abdomen, front of left little finger, front of left ring finger, on the back of left scapula and on the left loin. All the injuries and been caused by a sharp-edged weapon. Death in his opinion was due to the rupture of the heart and large intestine under the first and third injuries.
Both the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The time between the injuries and death was immediate and between death and post-mortem examination was about nine houRs, In the cross-examination he stated that it took four hours for a man of the type of the deceased to digest food and that he might have taken his food about four hours before his death as the stomach contained digested food material of about 8 ounces and his bladder was empty. He also stated that the deceased might have taken only three minutes to die after having received the injuries.
8. The motive for crime as stated in the F.I.R. Is that about 1/ months before the present occurrence there was a quarrel about the election campaign between the Chatha Baradari and the Baradari of the Sajjada Nashin of the Darbar, namely, Sahibzada Karamat Ali, P.W. The Chatha Baradari was connected with the National Alliance party. In the quarrel some members of the Chatha Baradari, including the appellant, came to the dera of the other side and in connection with the distribution of votes started abusing the elders of the opposing side. On this the deceased, who was Murid and servant of Sahibzada Karamat All P.W., was very upset and in retaliation abused the appellant and other members of his party. This annoyed the appellant as to why the deceased had abused them and insulted them at the dear of his own PeeRs, Thereafter the appellant and members of his party before leaving held out a threat to the deceased that they would teach him a lesson. Afterwards on numerous occasions the appellant had held out a threat that they would murder the deceased but since this was an ordinary matter, no notice of the same was taken and no report was lodged with the police. It was in this background that the occurrence had taken place.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. In the light of the motive version it is evident that there was some dispute pertaining to elections between the parties and that there is no other back ground of enmity. At least from the record it is evident that the deceased did not have enmity with any one except the Chatha group. The prosecution version is being supported by a single eye-witness of the occurrence, namely, Sahibzada Karamat All P.W.
Who is Sajjada Nashin at the Darbar as well as a practising Advocate in Tehsil Hafizabad. It is a day-time occurrence and no question of identification could possibly be involved, because even if an accused person had muffled his face, during day time he could have been known or identified by others, all being residents of the same area. Sahibzada Karamat Ali P.W. Is an educated person, an Advocate as well as Sajjada Nashin. He had no enmity with the appellant so as to falsely implicate him. The deceased was Murid of the Darbar as well as servant and was a poor man. He had no place to live, was a dependent of the Darbar and lived there by serving the Darbar or sweeping the same. If the motive version is kept in mind, he had abused the Chatha party because they were insolent to the descendants of Hazrat Jamal of whose Darbar he was a servant and Murid. Sahibzada Karamat All P.W. Has supported the prosecution version to the hilt. However, in the cross-examination he stated that when the eye-witnesses reached near the Darbar, then the appellant took to his heels on hearing their Raula. Sahibzada Karamat All P.W. Had seen the appellant from his side. The appellant had a muffled face but his eyes which were towards this witness were visible to the witness from the Mundasa. It was on this basis that he had recognized him. However, after the departure of the appellant, many persons collected at the spot. The occurrence took place roughly at about 7-15 a.m. And the F.I.R. Was promptly lodged within an hour. The police as well as this witness came to the spot at 8-30 a.m. And while they were on the spot one Hagar Ali also came there. This Baqar Ali implicated sixteen persons for the murder of the deceased and on the statement of Baqar Ali the written statement made by this witness was torn by the S.I. They wanted to prepare another statement but this witness refused to sign the same.
Nevertheless the police in the course of investigation had summoned the other persons who had been suspected and accused in this connection. Those persons were also from the village as well as from other villages who had not come to the spot. The persons belonging to this village were interrogated as suspects but eventually it is witness insisted upon his own statement about the occurrence which he had earlier written down. Finally, he reproduced his earlier statement. Which was produced before the S.I. On the same day at 8/9 p.m. Thus, this witness has clearly stated as to what was the correct position. It is interesting to note that Hakim Ali S.I. P.W. Who had investigated the matter, was not asked in the cross-examination as to which other persons he had interrogated as suspects in the instant case. The Investigating Officer had stated in the cross-examination that on having recorded the F.I.R. He went to the spot and thereafter started his search for the appellant at 12 noon on the day of occurrence. The appellant tried to escape from his house and he had run away 15/20 Karams from his house when he was arrested.. Be that as it may, the conviction and sentence can be sustained if the ocular testimony, even of a single eye-witness, is reliable. I have already pointed out that the recovery evidence is not of much worth in the instant case. But the ocular testimony of a single witness is quite reliable as it is being supported by the medical evidence and the motive version. In that view of the matter I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case as against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. His conviction as well as sentence awarded to him, in the circumstances of the case, were quite proper and are accordingly maintained. The result is that this appeal is dismissed, but the Jail authorities are hereby directed that they should grant the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B Cr.P.C. To the appellant at time of computation of his sentence of imprisonment.