This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad whereby he on 10-8-1980 convicted Aziz-ur-Rehman's appellant under section 302, P.P.C. For causing the death of Farzand Ali and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default thereof to one year's R.I. It was directed that the fine if realized half of the same be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C.
The occurrence took place on 8-5-1978 at 2 p.m. In the house of Farzand All deceased situated in Chak No. 182/G.B. Police Station Rajana, District Faisalabad. The F.I.R. Exh.P.C. Is the statement of Farzand Ali deceased recorded on 8-5-1978 at 11.30 p. m. By Ismat Ullah S.I. P.W.12 in the District Headquarters Hospital, Faisalabad. The formal F.I.R. Exh.P.C./1 was drawn up at Police Station.
Rajana by Muhammad Afzal Head Constable P.W.7 on 9-5-1978 at 12.05 a.m. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is ten miles.
3. The motive alleged by the prosecution was that one year before the occurrence, Mst. Majida the real mother of the appellant was divorced by Farzand Ali, deceased, the father of the appellant.
Thereafter, the appellant alongwith his mother and sister left the house of the deceased and started living in a separate Ihata. Since the appellant was not of a good moral character, therefore, Farzand Ali asked him not to visit his house. On the eventful day, the appellant came to the house of his father the deceased and asked him to turn out Muhammad Shafi but the latter refused to do so, hence this occurrence.
4. As for the main occurrence, it has been stated that on the eventful time, Azizur Re It n appellant came to the house of Farzand Ali, his father and asked him to turn out Muhammad Shafi from his house. On refusal by the latter to do so, the appellant took out knife from his Dub and declare that since the deceased had divorced his mother, he would not leave him alive. The appellant then opened attack and gave two knife blows on the person of the deceased. The occurrence was seen by Yousaf (not produced) and Ibrahim P.W.2. Farzand Ali was removed to the District Headquarters Hospital, Faisalabad where he succumbed to the injuries on 14-6-1978. Firstly, he was medically examined by Dr. Syed Javed Hussain Zaidi P.W.11 who found following injuries on his person:- (i)An incised wound --" x --" skin deep over the shoulder blade oblique 1" from the angle of scapula.
(ii)A penetrating wound 2" x --" x D.N.P. In left illiac fossa. Small intestine and omentum coming out of the wound. Patient was in severe hypovaelmic shock and in severe hypotension shock. Thin thready pulse 160 p.m.
Injury No. 1 was simple in nature and injury No. 2 was declared grievous. Both the injuries were caused by the sharp-edged weapon. On 14-4-1978 Dr. Muhammad Riaz Ali P.W.3 conducted post- mortem on his dead body. He found the following injuries:- (i)A healed wound --" long below the lower border of left shoulder blade.
(ii)A healed wound 2" long on the left side of the abdomen.
5. The appellant was arrested on 30-6-1978 by Saghir Hussain A.S. I. P.W.9. On the same day he led to the recovery of blood-stained knife P.5 from his Kotha, vide memo. P.F attested by Muhammad Yousaf (not produced) and Muhammad Ibrahim P.W.2 and prepared by Saghir Hussain P.W.9. The Serologists report Exh.P.N. reveal8 that knife was stained with human blood.
6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Muhammad Ibrahim p.W.2 was produced to prove the recovery of blood-stained knife P.5 from the appellant and gave the ocular account. He did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Dr. Syed Javed Hussain Zaidi P.W.11 has proved the medico-legal report and certificate P.J./1 to the effect that Farzand Ali was fit to make statement. Dr. Muhammad Riaz Ali P.W. 3 has proved the post-mortem report of the deceased. The F.I.R. Exh P.C./1, which tantamount to a dying declaration has been proved by Ismat Ullah S.I. P.W .12. Saghir Hussain A.S.I. P.W. 9 has supported the recovery of knife P.5 from the appellant. The rest of the evidence is more or less of formal nature.
7. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He raised the plea of false implication in defence no witness was examined.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, that Muhammad Ibrahim P.W. Has neither supported the ocular account nor recovery of knife P.5 from the appellant; that dying declaration was not taken in the presence of the Doctor, that it was not recorded by the Magistrate that Farzand Ali was in such a serious condition that he could not make any statement before the Police; that Muhammad Hanif P.W.4 the brother of the deceased has categorically stated that Farzand Ali was not in his senses when he reached the hospital and he did not give any statement to the Police. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court. He maintained that the alleged dying declaration Exh.P.C. Being a genuine and true document confection can safely be sustained without any independent corroboration.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that statement Exh . P.C. Made by Farzand Ali deceased before Ismat Ullah S.1. Which can legally be treated as dying declaration is a genuine document. The occurrence took place on 8-5-1978 at 2 p.m. Farzand Ali was removed to District Headquarter Hospital, Faisalabad, where he reached after 9 P.M. It was at 9.25 p.m. That Doctor Syed Javaid Hussain Zaidi sent information to the Station House Officer about the arrival of Farzand Ali in the hospital. Ismat Ullah S.I. P.W.12 reached the hospital at about 10/11 p.m. He contacted Dr. Syed Javaid Hussain Zaidi and made inquiry about the fitness of Farzand Ali to make statement. At 11 p.m. On the same day Dr. Syed Javaid Hussain Zaidi gave certificate Exh , P.J./1 to the effect that Farzand Ali was medically fit to make statement. In cross-examination, the Doctor has refuted the suggestion that the patient was not fit to make the statement. So the statement of Muhammad Hanif P.W.4 the brother of the deceased that the deceased was not in senses when he reached the hospital and he did not make any statement to the Police appears to be false and obliging one. Dr. Syed Javaid Hussain Zaidi and Ismat Ullah S.I.
Have been cross-examined by the defence but nothing advantageous to the appellant could be elicited. Both the witnesses are quite independent. Dr, Syed Javaid Hussain Zaidi had no motive or compulsion to issue a false certificate. Similarly. Ismat Ullah S.I. P.W. 12 had no ill-will against the appellant A to involve him falsely in the case. The occurrence took place in a broad daylight. The kind of the weapon used and the seat of the injury on the person of the deceased i.e. Abdomen show that the assailant was, not only very close to the deceased but was also in front of him at the time of the occurrence and as such Farzand Ali could have easily identified him. Aziz-ur-Rehman's appellant is the real son of Farzand Ali deceased. Therefore, there was no difficulty in identifying him. Had the appellant not caused injuries to the deceased the letter would not have named him in statement Exh.P.C. No case for the substitution of the appellant in place of real culprit has been made out. From a reading of the dying declaration Exh . P.C.1 have formed a strong impression that it has a ring of truth and as such conviction can safely be maintained on this piece of evidence alone. If the rule of prudence requires any corroboration, the same is also available an the shape of recovery of blood-stained knife from the appellant. The recovery of blood-stained knife from the appellant is supported by Saghir Hussain A.S.I. P.W.9. He is also an independent witness. The Serologist report Exh.P.V. Is to the effect that the knife was stained with human blood. It appears that since the matter was between the father and the son, therefore, Muhammad Ibrahim who was an eye-witness as well as witness of the recovery of knife P.5 from the appellant has not supported the prosecution. For all these reasons, I am convinced that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant.
10. The upshot of the above discussion is that there being satisfactory basis to uphold the conviction and the sentence of the appellant, the appeal is dismissed.