' Muhammad Inayat appellant, his brother Monda and two sons of Monda namely, Umar Hayat appellant and Muhammad Yar were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat for the murder of Muhammad Yousuf and murderous assault on Khizar Hayat complainant. Muhammad Inayat and Umar Hayat appellants were convicted, on 9-9-1981, under section 302/34, P.P.C. And each of them sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rupees five thousand each or in default in payment of fine to undergo R.I. For one year. They were further convicted under section 307/34, P.P.C. And each of them sentenced to undergo R.I. For five years and a fine of Rupees one thousand each or in default in payment of fine to undergo R.I. For six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It was ordered that out of the fine recovered under section 302/34, P.P.C. One-fourth shall be given to the heirs of the deceased. It was further ordered that out of the fine imposed under section 307/34, P.P.C. One-fourth shall be paid to Khizar Hayat complainant. Monda and Muhammad Yar co-accused were, however, given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges.
2. Muhammad Yousuf deceased was also a first cousin of Khizar Hayat complainant. Father of Khizar Hayat complainant, who lived in village Jhulana died about twenty-two/twenty-three years ago. Mother of Khizar Hayat complainant took her son to village Dhool and started living in the house of her parents. During the absence of Khizar Hayat complainant, Monda accused took possession of the land and house belonging to Khizar Hayat complainant. In April, 1980, Monda accused gave three Killas of land to Khizar Hayat complainant and complainant started living in the house of his uncle Muhammad Hayat P.W. The complainant asked Monda accused to give him back the remaining property but the latter declined. A month before the present occurrence, the complainant gave beating to Umar Hayat appellant as the latter damaged the crop of former.
Muhammd Hayat P.W. Separated them. Umar Hayat appellant threatened to avenge the insult.
3. On the night between 28/29-8-1980, Khizar Hyat complainant and Muhammad Yousuf deceased slept at their Behk. Muhammad Hayat and Baqri P.Ws. Slept at some distance from the deceased and the complainant. At about mid-night, Umar Hayat threw challenge at the complainant and the deceased. Monda accused gave Toka blow to Muhammad Yousuf on the head. Thereafter, Muhammad Inayat appellant inflicted hatchet blow to the deceased on the head. Umar Hayat appellant gave hatchet blow to the deceased on the forehead. Ahmad Yar caused injury with hatchet to the deceased on the neck. Khizar Hayat complainant tried to rescue the deceased but he was caused injuries by the appellants and the acquitted accused. Muhammad Hayat and Baqri P.Ws. Shouted to the appellant and the acquitted accused that they should desist from causing injuries. The appellants and the acquitted accused fled away. The complainant and the deceased were removed to Hospital Mandi Bahauddin. Muhammad Yousuf sccumbed to the injuries on the way.
4. On the receipt of information about the occurrence, Abdul Majid, S.H.O., Police Station Kuthiala Sheikhan, reached hospital Mandi Bahauddin. After obtaining the report of doctor that Khizar Hayat was fit to make statement, the S.H.O. Recorded the statement of Khizar Hayat Exh.P.H. This statement was sent to the police station and formal F.I.R. Was recorded. The S.H.O. Prepared the inquest report and the injury statement of the deceased and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He took into possession the last worn clothes of the deceased. On reaching the spot, he collected blood-stained earth and sealed it into a parcel. He took into possession cot, Khais, bed sheet and a pair of shoes and prepared the memos. He arrested the accused, on 1-9-1980. Inayat appellant produced blood-stained hatchet P.6 from his Kotha, on 13-9-1980 and it was sealed into a parcel. On the same day, Muhammad Yar appellant produced blood-stained hatchet P.7 from his Dera and it was sealed into a parcel. Both the memos. Were attesed by Jehana and Muhammad Ashraf. Patwari prepared the site plan. Both the hatchets were found to be stained with human blood.
5. Dr. Rashid Ahmad M.O., Civil Hospital, Phalia conducted autopsy on the dead body of Muhammad Yousuf, on 29-8-1980 at 12-00 noon. He found nineteen incised wounds on the body of the deceased. In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased died on account of shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries which were caused with sharp-edged weapon and were ante- mortem. The injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Time between injuries and death was one to two hours and between death and post-mortem ten to twelve hours.
6. Dr. Nazir Ahmad Anwar, Medical Officer, Mandi Bahauddin medically examined Khizar Hayat P.W.
On 28-8-1980, at 6-10 a.m. And found six incised wounds on his person. Injuries Nos. 2 and 4 were on the head. All the injuries were caused with sharp-edged weapon. Injuries Nos. 2 and 4 were grievous and dangerous to life while the rest were simple in nature. The duration of the injuries was three to six hours. The injured was taken to the hospital, at 3-15 a.m.
7. Khizar Hayat and Muhammad Hayat P.Ws. Fully supported the prosecution case and involved the appellants and the acquitted accused in their statements. Baqri P.W. Had not supported the prosecution case. He was allowed to be cross-examined by the learned A.P.P. Muhammad Ashraf supported the recoveries of blood-stained hatchets at the instance of Muhammad Inayat and Umar Hayat appellants. Rest were the formal witnesses.
8. Monda admitted that Umar Hayat and Muhammad Yar accused were his -sons while Inayat accused was his brother. He further admitted that Khizar Hayat complainant was his cousin. He denied to have committed the murder of Muhammad Yousuf. He further denied to have made murderous assault on Khizar Hayat complainant. He did not admit the motive part. When asked as to why the case was against him, he gave the following answer:- "The real facts are that mine Khata is joint with the complainant and Hayat P.W. But all the land of his Khata is in my possession as a co-sharer. They demanded possession of the land but I advised them to get the Khata partitioned and I have not paid any produce to them so far, for which they had bad motive against me. Secondly, during consolidation proceedings I have been given better type of land than the complainant and Hayat P.W. And they compelled me to exchange with them but I had refused to do so. Thirdly, Hayat P.W. Exchanged 3 Kanals of land with me and I have not delivered possession of the exchanged land to him. Fourthly, Hayat P.W. Demanded the hand of my daughter Surriya for his son but I refused to do so and married her with one Aslam resident of village Shahidanwali, who is at inimical terms with Hayat P.W. And for this reason also he bears grudge against me. Fifthly, after the death of Shahu, father of the complainant his widow was abducted by Baqri P.W. In connivance with Hayat P.W. And both of them in order to put pressure upon me filed application against me that I have administered poison to Shahu and on their application the matter was investigated and the allegation was found to be false and I was acquitted by the police. Sixthly, the complainant and the deceased were professional criminals and they had committed so many offences and somebody has committed this offence in the darkness of the night and on the basis of the above enmity I alongwith my other members of the family have been falsely implicated in this case."
' The other accused denied the prosecution allegation and adopted the statement of Monda accused. Copy of Jamabandi Exh.D.C. School leaving certificates of Muhammad Yar Exh.D.D. And Umar Hayat Exh.D.E. Were tendered by Monda accused. No witness was, however, examined in defence.
9. I was taken through the entire record. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that there was sufficient delay in lodging the F.I.R. That the doctor stated that he ranged up the S.H.O.
And informed him about the occurrence but the S.H.O. Made the contradictory statement by stating that he received information while he was present at King Road; that Muhammad Yar P.W.
Stated that he sent Mehndi Lambardar to the police station, who informed him in the hospital that he had lodged the report; that the complainant stated in the F.I.R.That he heard the Lalkaras but changed his statement in Court and stated that he woke up when the deceased was being beaten; that the conduct of the complainant was unnatural as he did not run away from the spot; that the recoveries of the hatchets were not proved and there was sufficient time with Umar Hayat and Muhammad Inayat appellants to clean the weapons; that the parcels containing hatchets were sent after considerable time; that Baqri P.W. Had not supported the prosecution case and the trial Court did not assign any reason for rejecting his testimony; that the occurrence was not witnessed by Muhammad Hayat P.W. That no witness was examined to prove the motive in this case.
10. The learned counsel for the State submitted that there was no delay in lodging the F.I.R and that the delay had been reasonably explained; that Muhammad Yar P.W. Had sent Mehndi Lambardar to the police station but since Mehndi was not an eye-witness, he had not lodged the report and he might have conveyed information about the injuries caused to the deceased and the complainant.
11. The parties were related inter se. Muhammad Yousuf deceased was a first cousin of Muhammad Inayat appellant. Similarly, Khizar Hayat complainant was also a first cousin of Muhammad Inayat appellant. The complainant shifted to the house of his maternal grand parents after the death of his father. He returned to village Jhulana about a year before the occurrence. He got back three Killas of land from Monda and demanded the remaining property from the accused. Sometime before the present occurrence, he had given beating to Umar Hayat appellant. The appellants had a motive against Khizar Hayat complainant and Muhammad Yousuf deceased with whom the complainant lived. Khizar Hayat had received injuries at the time of occurrence. Thus his presence could not be doubted. It is true that Khizar Hayat complainant had demanded back his landed property but I cannot agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that for that reason he would go to the extent of making false statement against the appellants. Muhammad Hayat P.W.
Was a real uncle of Muhammad Inayat appellant. He had absolutely no motive to make false statement against the appellants. In view of the close relationship and the absence of any bad blood between the parties, I cannot hold that Khizar Hayat complainant and his uncle Muhammad Hayat were interested witnesses. Their statements did not require any independent corroboration.
12. The two appellants armed with hatchets had inflicted injuries to the deceased and Khizar Hayat P.W. The statements of Khizar Hayat complainant and Muhammad Hayat were corroborated by medical evidence. The motive also stood proved from the statement of Khizar Hayat complainant.
Muhammad Ashraf was a disinterested witness. There was no material on record to reject his testimony. The recoveries of the hatchets stood proved through the statements furnished by Muhammad Ashraf and the S.H.O.
13. The occurrence had taken place in village Jhulana. Muhammad Yousuf and Khizar Hayat were removed to Civil Hospital, Mandi Bahauddin. Muhammad Yousuf had died on the way to the hospital. Both of them were taken to the hospital at about 3-15 a.m. The doctor medically examined Khizar Hayat at 6-10 a.m. The S.H.O. Reached hospital and recorded the statement of Khizar Hayat.
This statement was completed at 6-45 a.m. In these circumstances I cannot agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that there was sufficient delay in lodging the F.I.R. Of this case. It would be immaterial if the S.H.O. Received telephonic call from the doctor or he received in- formation while he was present at King Road. Since Mehndi Lambardar was not an eye-witness, he might have gone to the police station and informed the police that injuries had been caused to Muhammad Yousuf and Khizar Hayat. That information could not be considered to be First Information Report. The discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants were quite insignificant and had no bearing on the result of the case. The conduct of the complainant was quite natural. He lived in the house of Muhammad Yousuf deceased. It was quite natural for him to have stepped forward to rescue him.
14. The recoveries of blood-stained hatchets stood proved from the evidence furnished by disinterested witnesses Muhammad Ashraf and the S.H.O. These two hatchets were found to be stained with human blood. The two appellants had produced the hatchets from their house. Both hatchets were sealed into parcel and kept at police Malkhana. Even if they were sent with delay to the office of Chemical Examiner, the delay would not affect the opinion of Chemical Examiner.
15. The complainant had given the motive of this case. Since he was disinterested witness, his statement alone was sufficient to prove the motive. After having considered entire record, I hold that the prosecution had proved the case against the two appellants and they were rightly convicted. The appeal is without any merit and it is dismissed.
16. Before parting with the appeal I would like to observe that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had not assigned good reasons for acquitting Monda and Muhammad Yar, who according to the two eye-witnesses had inflicted blows to the deceased and Khizar Hayat P.W. With their respective weapons.