Azhar Haider Shah (15) was tried for the murder of Zaheer Ali Shah. Mr. Masood Akhtar Khan, Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore on 7th May, 1984, convicted him under section 302, P.P.C., and sentenced him to death with a fine of Rs.2,000 which if realised was ordered to be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased.
2. About 1 -- months before the occurrence in this case, Zaheer Ali Shah deceased and Azhar Haider Shah accused cut jokes with each other but it took a serious turn and they started grappling with each other. Their relations interfered and the matter was patched up. The accused, however, nourished a grudge and according to the prosecution at about 9-15 p.m. On 11th May, 1983, Zaheer Ali Shah was dewing television in the house of Mubarak Ali Shah. His father Zameer Ali Shah alongwith Dilder Hussain Shah and Zahid Ali Shah were also there when suddenly Azhar Haider Shah accused appeared there, ripped out a Chhuri frog, the fold of his Shalwar and gave repeated blows with it to Zaheer Ali Shah, causing injuries in the left flank and right hand. Those who were present there tried to appalled him but he fled away with the knife. Zaheer Ali Shah was carried to the Mayo Hospital but on reaching, he succumbed to the injuries.
3. P.W. 10 Abdur Rashid S.I., P.S. Shahdara was on patrol duty when he received information about the occurrence at 9-45 p.m. He reached the hospital at 11 p.m. And recorded Zameer Ali's statement on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Exh. P.E./1 was registered after midnight at 12-15 p.m.
The S.I. Prepared the necessary documents, sent the dead body for its post-mortem examination and then went to the place of occurrence. As it was dark, he posted a constable to guard the place of occurrence and himself went in search of the accused. In the morning at about 8-30 a.m. The S.I.
Inspected the spot, look into the possession the blood-stained earth. The same evening, he arrested Azhar Haider Shah accused. On 15th May, 1983 at his pointing out he got recovered Chhuri Exh. P.1 from underneath a Sofa lying in his Baithak, it was made into a sealed parcel through memo. Exh. P.D. Attested by P.W. 8 Mazhar Shah and the Investigating Officer besides Javed Ali who was given up as unnecessary.
4. P.W. 5 Dr. Muhammad Farooq Akmal Officer, Office of the Surgeon Medico-legal Punjab, on 12th May, 1983 held the autopsy on the dead body of Zaheer Ali Shah at 12-24 p.m. And found the following injuries on his person:--- (1)Transversely /incised wound at the palm of the right hand, 11.5 c.m. x .45 c.m. Cutting the muscles of the thelar eminence, the first metacarpal bone and branches of the radial attorney injury was 98 c.m. Above right heel.
(2)Transversely /stab wound 8 c.m. x 4 c.m. With inner edges one side and a portion of the 5th rib and 5th inter space visible, at the lower mid left chest 9 c.m. Below and outer the left nipple. This injury was 117 c.m. Above right heel.
(3)Transfersely/stab wound 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. At the back lower right chest. 7 c.m. Away from the midline. This injury was 111 c.m. Above right heel.
(4)Transversely /stab wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. At the back mid left chest. 13 c.m. Away from the midline. This injury was 116 c.m. Above right heel.
(5)Multiple elliptical abrasion 13 c.m. x 3 c.m. At the front upper mid chest.
(6)Incised wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. At the front upper left chest superficial. "
Injury No. 2 cut the upper and the lower lobe the left lung. Injury No. 3 cut the 10th rib. The right dome of diaphragm, upper pole of the right kidney and the surface of the right lobe of the liver. In his opinion Zaheer Ali Shah died of shock and haemorrhage caused by the injuries. After completing the investigation, the accused was sent up for trial.
5. During examination, Azhar Haider Shah, accused denied guilt and said that the deceased had cut dirty jokes with him which he reported to his father who quarrelled with the deceased and his father. He added that knife P. 1 was recovered from the house of Mubarak by the police but was planted on him. Further according to him due to his father's strained relations with the father of the deceased and the witnesses who are related inter se, he has been falsely roped. He also added that to fact, the complainant party wanted to involve his father, since he was away from Lahore on that night, therefore, being the eldest son to the family, he has been roped in. He concluded saving that a false story was concocted in the morning of 12th May, 1983. In fact it was a blind murder. He produce the school leaving certificate for the age, according to which, he was about 14 years old then. He led no evidence in defence.
6. Relying on the ocular testimony and the evidence of recovery of the blood-stained knife at the instance of the accused, trial came to the conclusion that the prosecution case was satisfactorily proved against the appellant.
7. Criticizing the finding, learned counsel for the appellant contended that in fact it was a blind murder and the story put up by the prosecution did not appeal to reason because there were able-bodied men in the room including deceased's father, yet none interfered and the accused was able to cause no less than six injuries to the deceased which was highly improbable. In support of this submission he referred to the statement of P.W.6 Muhammad Aslam Shah who identified the dead body. According to this witness, he had seen the deceased staggering in the lane who fell there on account of the injuries suffered by him, thereafter he informed P.W. Dildar Hussain (the given up eye-witness), who in turn informed deceased's father. Next submitted that the deceased's father was not present at the place of occurrence but stage managed his presence which finds support from the fact that in the F.I.R., only two injuries were ascribed by him to the accused but the doctor found no less than six injuries on different parts of deceased's body.
The contradiction coupled with the statement of P.W. 6 Muhammad Aslam was according to the learned counsel, enough to prove the absence of the informant at the time of occurrence. It was also argued that although according to P.W. Zahid Ali, he did not go to the hospital with the deceased yet his name figures in the inquest report. On the other hand, this witness said that he was sent for the police at the police station at night and it was inquired from him whether he was the owner of the house where the occurrence took place. The witness added that after replying in the affirmative, he returned home. The argument, therefore, is that had he been an eye--witness of the occurrence, he would have mentioned it so at the police station. His conduct as such did not inspire confidence.
7. We have considered the submissions. It may be mentioned at the outset that no doubt only two injuries have been described in the F.I.R. But the informant had also mentioned therein that the accused gave repeated injuries. Simply because the informant gave description of only two injuries would not mean that he did not see the occurrence. Under the circumstances, we do not consider it a contradiction with medical evidence. As to the evidence of P.W. 6 Muhammad Aslam Shah who was put up by the prosecution for the identification of the dead body only and not as an eye- witness, has on his own come out with the story that he had seen the deceased staggering and falling down in the lane. Obviously, this formal witness was trying to help the B accused. No importance can be given to such evidence. Even otherwise his evidence did not inspire confidence because he gave no explanation as to why he did not go to inform deceased's father who lived close to the place of occurrence.
8. Next we take up the inquest report wherein Zahid Hussain's name has appeared, this may have been done in the column of facts of the case by the Investigating Officer because in the F.I.R. The name of the witness had appeared. We are also inclined to think that Zahid Hussain is making a concession when he said that he was sent for at the police station and inquired about the ownership of the house because it did nut stand to reason that a Police Officer would just send for him to verify whether he was the owner of the house where the occurrence took place and nothing more. It may be mentioned here that P.W. 10 Abdur Rashid S.I. Denied the suggestion that Zahid Hussain P.W. Was taken to the police station by him. He has however, admitted that he met Zahid Hussain for the first time on 12th May, 1983 at 8-30 a.m. And that he was not there when he recorded the inquest report. We are of the view that these circumstances do not show that Zahid Hussain had not seen the occurrence. In his examination-in-chief he has fully corroborated the evidence of deceased's father In fact, the occurrence took place in. His house. On the other hand, we-find no reason why the informant should put up a false murder case against the accused with whom he had no previous enmity. We find no reason to doubt his presence in the house of Mubarik.
There was nothing unusual for the informant to have gone to view the T.V. In the house of a neighbour. True, there were many persons in the room where the occurrence took place and none tried to catch the accused, but this would not mean that the witnesses were not there. Often unarmed people who are around E when an occurrence takes place are taken by surprise and out of fear of injuries stay away. Few mustard courage and interfere on such occasions.
For the foregoing reasons, we are satisfied with the guilt of the appellant. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, since the appellant was about 13/14 years of age at the time of occurrence, we therefore, do not propose to confirm the death sentence passed on him. We substitute it for life imprisonment Sentence of fine is reduced to Rs.1,000 (Rupees one thousand). revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.