JAVID IQBAL, C. J.---Mehdi Khan son of Mehr Dad, aged 26, armed with knife, stands convicted vide judgment, dated 21-2-1983 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat under section 302, P.P. C.
For the murder of Abdul Razzak, aged 13, his phhuphhizad, and was sentenced to death plus fine of Rs.2,000 or in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. The Sessions Court has not awarded any compensation although it is obligatory or, it to do so. His co-accused, namely, Muhammad son of Ahmad, aged 52/53, empty-handed was only convicted under section 323, P.P.C. For assault on the deceased and was sentenced to six month rigorous imprisonment with the direction that he should be given the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B Cr.P.C. At the time of the computation of his sentence of imprisonment, lie has not filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence, and, therefore, his case is not before us. Convict Mehdi Khan leas filed appeal through jail which is being disposed of alongwith the reference for confirmation of death sentence awarded to him by this judgment.
2. The occurrence took place at chhawela (about 8/9 a. m.) on 10-11-1981 in the fields within the area o village Randheer at a distance of 11 miles from Police Station Dinga District Gujrat. F.I.R.
(Exh.P.F.) was lodged by Sardar Khan (P.W.6) father of the deceased, at 2-20 p.m. On the same day and it was recorded by Ghulam Haider M.H.C. (P.W.11). Initially case was registered under section 307/34, P.P.C. But on the death of the deceased on the following day at 8-00 a.m. It was altered to section 302/34, P.P.C.
3. The motive for crime as stated in the F.I.R. Is that the appellant had sown and cultivated rice crop in the land claimed to be belonging jointly to his father and Bhalo (P.W.10) his paternal uncle. Bhalo P.W. Demanded share of the produce from him which he refused. Bhalo P.W. Used to give share of the produce from the said land to his sister Mst. Amina i.e. Mother of the deceased, and he used to live with them as well as eat with them. The appellant is stated to have told his phhuphhi, Mst.
Amina, brother of the deceased, that she should not cook food for Bhalo P.W. And also should not take share of the produce from him of the said land. She refused to agree with him as Bhalo P.W.
Was her brother and on this the appellant is stated to have left with a threat that he would teach a lesson for refusing his demand.
4. In the F.I.R. The occurrence is reported to have taken place in the following manner: On the fateful day the deceased was grazing goats and at that time Bhalo P.W. As well as Ijaz (not produced) were cutting Sarkandas at some distance. Leaving the goats to graze in the Shamilat land the deceased sat nearby. In the meantime the appellant armed as described above, alongwith Muhammad co-accused empty-handed came from the side of the village and raised a Lalkara to the effect that he was going to teach a lesson for Bhalo P.W. Daring to take share of the produce from the disputed land. Thereafter, Muhammad, co-accused, got hold of the deceased and gave him fist blows. Then the appellant gave a knife blow to the deceased which fell on his abdomen.
The deceased fell down on the ground. Sardar Khan (P.W.6) Bhalo (P.W.10) as well as Ijaz (not produced) who were witnessing the occurrence from some distance suddenly rushed to the spot.
But in the meantime the appellant and his companion ran away. The deceased was taken to the Civil Hospital, Dinga in an injured condition. The Medical officer there admitted him to the hospital and gave the report of his medical examination to Sardar Khan P.W. And thereafter, Sardar Khan P.W. Proceeded to lodge the report with the police.
5. The prosecution has produced two eye-witnesses of the occurrence namely, Sardar Khan (P.W.6) father of the deceased, and Bhalo (P.W.10) paternal uncle of the appellant and maternal uncle of the deceased. Ijaz was cited as an eye-witness of the occurrence in the F.I.R. But has not been produced.
6. It is not clear as to when was the appellant arrested in the instant case because Safdar Inayat S.I.
P.W.5 had stated that he arrested him on 10-11-1981, whereas Sarfraz Khan A.S.I. (P.W.7) stated that he was arrested on 13-11-1981. Anyway the co-accused Muhammad was arrested on 27-11-1981 by Safdar Inayat S.I. P.W.
5. At the instance of the appellant was recovered knife Exh.P.2 and it was taken into possession vide Memo. Exh.P.E. Dated 20-11-1981. The attesting witnesses are Muhammad Riasat (P.W.4). Imtiaz Ahmad (not produced) and Safdar Inayat S.I. (P.W.5). According to the report of the Serologist Exh.P.K./1 at page 10/11 of the printed paper-book the knife in question was found to be stained with human blood.
7. The appellant in his statement before the trial Court denied having participated in the occurrence. He stated that the land was exclusively owned by his father and that it was in their cultivating possession. He stated that he had been falsely implicated in the instant case because of the enmity of Sardar Khan P.W. As well as Bhalo P.W. And that both of them were inimical not only towards him but also towards his father. He also stated that he had been falsely involved in this case by them but in fact Sardar Khan P. W. Had enmity with many other persons and one of his enemies had murdered his son in an uninhabited jungle but they had falsely involved him in this case due to enmity. In order to show that Sardar Khan P.W. Had other enemies he produced judgment (Exh.D.A.) in which Sardar Khan P.W. Had appeared as a witness in some murder case against some other accused persons.
8. Dr. Ghazanfar Ahmad Salim (P.W.1) medically examined the deceased while he was still alive and found on his person an incised wound abdomen deep. The injury was kept under observation as it was likely to become dangerous later on. He admitted the patient to the hospital and gave him aid as well as treatment but had found him unfit to make a statement at 4-45 p.m. The patient died on 11-11-1981 at about 8-00 a.m. He was brought to the hospital by Sardar Khan P.W.
Dr. Muhammad Afzal (P.W.2) conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased at 12-00 noon on 11-11-1981 and noted the same injury on his person. According to him the injury had been caused with a sharp-edged weapon and it was grievous as well as fatal. In his opinion death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of this injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Probable time that elapsed between the injury and death was about 22 hours.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at State expense and carefully perused the record. It is clear even from the statement of the appellant made before the trial Court that there was some dispute pertaining to the land and that Bhalo P.W. As well as Sardar Khan P.W. Used to claim share of produce from the father as well as the appellant. So, in other words the motive is there even if not fully admitted by the appellant. Even if there had been this dispute, the direct motive of the appellant or his father could have been against Sardar Khan P.W. Or Bhalo P.W. And not against the deceased in the instant case who was only a boy aged 13 years. It may further be pointed out that it was a day-time occurrence and the F.I.R. In this case had been lodged promptly.
Sardar Khan P.W. Himself brought the deceased in an injured condition to the hospital and after getting medico-legal report he went to the police station to lodge the report. The ocular testimony is to the effect that the appellant gave a knife blow in the abdomen of the deceased and as a result he fell down on the ground. Learned counsel has attempted to argue that both the eye- witnesses in the instant case might have not witnessed the occurrence and that some enemy of Sardar Khan P.W. Had murdered his son. This reasoning of learned counsel does not appeal to us.
There is nothing oh the record to show that Sardar Khan P.W. Had other enemies and in this respect Exh.D.A. Only indicates that Sardar Khan P.W. Had 6 appeared as a witness in some murder case against some accused persons. This by itself would not establish that he had many other enemies who could do the job. Even if we were to consider that both Sardar Khan P.W. And Bhalo P.W. Were inimical towards the appellant and, therefore, should be treated as interested witnesses, we note that their ocular -testimony in the instant case is being corroborated by the recovery evidence and then it is further being supported by the medical evidence D as well as the motive version. In any case, all of them are members of the same family and there was no reason for substitution as the major role is ascribed only to one person and that is the appellant. We also note that if the appellant had any grievance, he could have raised his hand on Sardar Khan P.W. Or on Bhalo P.W.
And that there was no reason on his part to murder a child of 13 years who was son of Sardar Khan P.W. Or son of the sister of Bhalo P:W. In that view of the matter, the appellant does not deserve any leniency. We are convinced h in our mind that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case as against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. Consequently his conviction as well as sentence awarded to him in the circumstances of the case were quite proper and well- deserved and are accordingly maintained. This appeal is dismissed. The death sentence awarded to the appellant is hereby confirmed. The trial Court was under obligation to award compensation in such cases which it has not done. Therefore, we hereby further direct that the appellant should pay compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To the tune of Rs.10,000 to the heirs of the deceased or in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.