' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.--This Criminal Appeal No, 421 of 1983 and the Murder Reference No,126 of 1983 arise from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad whereby he on 18-6-1986 convicted Falak Sher (25) appellant under section 302, P.P.C. For causing the death of Muhammad (55/60) and sentenced him to death and a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default thereof to further R.I. For three years. It was directed that the fine, if recovered, Rs,7,000 out of the same, be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased.
2. The occurrence took place on 3-3-1981 at 4 p.m. In the area of Pattan Sheraza three miles away from the Police Station Garh, District Faisalabad. F.I.R. Exh.P.D. Is statement of Muhammad Siddique (P.W.8) son of deceased recorded by Ghulam Hussain S.I. (P.W.11) in Chak No,621/G.B. On the same day at 5-30 p.m. The formal Exh.P.D./1 was drawn up by Allah Ditta, Moharrar head constable (P.W.2) on the same day at 6-20 p.m. The distance between the spot and Chak 621 where F.I.R. Was recorded is 1 or 14 miles.
3. The motive alleged by the prosecution was that Mst. Sakina sister of Falak Sher appellant was married to Muhammad Siddique (P.W.8). She being of easy virtue was done to death by Muhammad Siddique (P.W.8) seven years before the present occurrence. Muhammad Siddique (P.W.8) was arrested and challaned under section 302, P.P.C. For the murder of Mst. Sakina. At trial stage, the parties arrived at compromise subject to the marriage of Mst. Hajiran father's sister's daughter of Muhammad Siddique with Muhammad younger brother of Falak Sher appellant. So, Muhammad Siddique was acquitted of the charge. Mst. Hajiran stayed with her husband for about two months and came back to her parents and did not go back to her husband. About 8/9 days before the occurrence, Mst. Sattan sister of Muhammad Siddique (P.W.8) who was the wife of Ali Sher another brother of the appellant came to her parents' house after altercation with her in-laws.
About 3/4 days before the occurrence Falak Sher appellant came to the house of Muhammad deceased and asked him to send Mst. Sattan and Mst. Hajiran to their husbands. The deceased refused to do so on the ground that they had been maltreated by their husbands. On this Falak Sher entered into altercation with the deceased and declared that he would take the revenge of the murder of his sister Mst. Sakina, hence this occurrence.
4. As for the main occurrence, it has been stated that on the eventful day Muhammad Siddique (P.W.8), Muhammad deceased and Ghulam (not produced) were bringing a buffalo from Chak No,394-G.B. Police Station Tandlianwala and when they reached the area of Pattan Sheraza at about 4 p.m. And Ghulam P.W. Was 25/30 Karams behind them, then all of a sudden,. Falak Sher appellant armed with hatchet emerged from a nearby ditch. He raised Lalkara that he would take the revenge of the murder of his sister. He inflicted 5 hatchet blows on the person of Muhammad.
The alarm raised by Muhammad Siddique and Ghulam P.Ws. Attracted Wahag (P.W.9) to the spot.
The witnesses tried to apprehend the appellant but he threatened them with dire consequences and ran away taking the hatchet with him. Muhammad died on the spot.
5. On 5-3-1981 Dr. Ghulam Rasool (P.W.1) conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad. He found the following injuries: "(1) An incised wound 6 c.m. x 14 c.m. x bone cut deep upon left side of face and outer angle of left eye. The underlying zygotic bone was cut through and through. The eye ball was also cut at outer half.
(2) An incised wound 2 c.m. x # c.m. x muscle deep on the left side of face close to left ear.
(3) An incised wound 11 c.m. x 4 c.m. x 6(1/2) c.m. On the back of the neck. The .Underlying muscle, blood vessel and body of fourth cervical vertebrae and spinal cord were cut through and through.
(4) An incised wound 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. x bone deep cutting muscle and blood vessel completely. Body of 5th cervical vertebra was partly cut on the back of the neckright half.
(5) An incised wound 6 c.m. x 1 c.m. x muscle deep on the right side of neck."
In his opinion the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as result of injuries to the spinal card and big blood vessel, caused by injuries 1, 3 and 4 which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The injuries were inflicted by sharp-edged weapon. The death was immediate and the time between the death and the post-mortem was 36/48 hours.
6. The appellant was arrested on 7-3-1981 by Ghulam Hussain S.I. (P.W.11). On the next day he led to the recovery of blood-stained hatchet P.4 from a wheat crop which was taken into possession vide memo P.G. Attested by Muhammad Hanif (P.W.6), and Saeed Ahmad (not produced). The recovery memo was prepared by Ghulam Hussain S.I. (P.W.11). The Serologist report Exh. P.M. Reveals that hatchet P.4 was stated with human blood.
7. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses, Muhammad Siddique P.W.8 and Wahag (P.W.9) have given the ocular account of the occurrence. They claim to have seen the appellant causing injuries with hatchet on the person of Muhammad, resulting in his immediate death.
Muhammad Siddique (P.W.8) also deposed about the background of the murder of his father.
Muhammad Haneef (P.W.6) has stated that the appellant had got recovered blood-stained hatchet P.4. Dr. Ghulam Rasool has proved the post-mortem examination report of the deceased.
The rest of the evidence is more or less of formal nature.
8. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He, however, admitted that Muhammad Siddique complainant was challaned for the murder of his sister Mst. Sakina and that the said murder was compromised in consequence whereof Mst. Hajiran was married with his brother Muhammad. He also admitted that Mst. Sattan sister of Muhammad Siddique was married to his brother All Sher in exchange of the marriage of his sister Mst. Sakina with Muhammad Siddique complainant. He also admitted that Mst. Sattan daughter of deceased had quarreled with her husband, Ali Sher about 8/10 days before the present murder and had gone back to the house of her father Muhammad deceased. He raised plea of false implication. He stated that the complainant party wanted the divorce of Mst. Sattan and Mst.
Hajiran and on refusal has involved him falsely to put pressure on them. In defence, no witness was produced.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as Muhammad Siddique is a related witness; that Wahag (P.W.9) is a chance witness, that both the eye-witnesses were not present on the spot; that the eye-witnesses are not reliable; that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the statement of. Muhammad Siddique (P.W.8) e.g. In the F.1.R. He stated that he was coming from Chak No,394/G.B. Whereas in his statement at trial he stated that he and the deceased were coming from Chak No,443; in the F.I.R. He stated that he had killed Mst. Sakina, his wife whereas at trial he stated that she was killed by her brother; in his statement before the Court, he stated that he had raised alarm at the time of occurrence but in the F.I.R. He did not state so and that his conduct that when his father was being injured by the appellant, he did not interfere and stood aside was quite unnatural; that Muhammad Haneef recovery witness is also a chance witness and that the story of the prosecution that at the eventful time, the complainant party was bringing a buffalo is false as no buffalo was produced in the Court and that Bashir, the owner of the buffalo was not joined in the investigation. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court.
10. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care and have reviewed the entire evidence tproduced by the prosecution, the statement of the appellant recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And the circumstances appearing in the case, in accordance with the guide-lines laid down by the superio Courts for the appreciation of evidence in such like cases. We find that it is a case of single accused, broad daylight occurrence and promptly lodged F.I.R. Wherein the names of the eye-witnesses, the name of the appellant, the weapon used by him and the manner in which he caused the death of Muhammad deceased, are mentioned. The occurrence took place at 4 p.m. And the F.I.R. Was lodged at 5-30 p.m. On the same day. There is nothing in evidence to show that the F.I.R. Exh.P.D. Was not recorded at the time and place as it purports to be. It seems to us that Exh. P.D. Is a genuine document which can safely be used to corroborate the statement of its maker namely Muhammad Siddique (P.W.8).
11. Adverting to the crucial piece of evidence i,e, ocular testimony, we find that the names of these two eye-witnesses are mentioned in the promptly lodged F.I.R. That the two eye-witnesses claim to have see the appellant causing injuries to Muhammad deceased with hatche resulting in his death. Wahag (P.W.9) is quite independent witness. e is neither related to the deceased nor was inimical with the appellant. He has given plausible explanation of his presence near the spot at the time of occurrence. He cultivates land at a distance of 20 Karams from the place of occurrence. He was grazing his camel in his own cultivate. Land at the time of occurrence when on hearing the alaram he climbed on a small dune and therefrom witnessed the appellant causing injuriewith hatchet to the deceased. The statement of Muhammad Siddiqu witness cannot be discarded on the ground of his relationship with the deceased. Both the eye-witnesses have successfully faced cross-examination and nothing advantageous to the defence could be elicited. The statements made by the two eye-witnesses are in consonance with the probability, and materially fit in with the rest of evidence. The statements do not suffer from infirmities such as material contradiction/ major discrepancies or dishonest improvements. We do not see any lega infirmity in the statements of the two eye-witnesses. To our minds, the two eye-witnesses are absolutely dependable and implicit reliance can be placed on their statements without corroboration. If the rule of prudence requires. Independent corroboration of the statement of the two eye-witnesses qua the appellant that is also available in the shape of promptly lodged F.I.R. Motive which has almost been admitted by the appellant in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And the recovery of hatchet P.4 stained with human blood proved by Muhammad Hanif (P.W.6) and Ghulam Hussain S.I. (P.W.11). Muhammad Hanif P.W. Is quite independent witness. He has given sound reason for his joining the investigation. He had no enmity with the appellant and can be safely relied on. The appellant has not been able to rebut prosecution case and its evidence. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant do not hold any water. For all these reasons, we are satisfied that the appellant has rightly been convicted by the trial Court.
12. This brings us to the question of sentence. We do not see any mitigating/extenuating circumstances in favour of the appellant for lesser penalty inasmuch as Mst. Sakina the sister of the appellant was not killed by the complainant; that although Muhammad Siddique complainant, the son of the complainant had allegedly killed her yet the parties had arrived at compromise whereby the hand of Mst. Hajiran the sister of Muhammad Siddique complainant was given in marriage to the brother of the appellant as compensation and that Mst. Sattan whom the.
Deceased had refused to send back, was not the wife of the appellant.
13. For what has been said above, there being no merit the appeal is dismissed and the sentence of death of the appellant is confirmed.
Death .