Muhammad Khalid (25) was tried for the murder of his father Faujdar Khan. On 10-10-1984 Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, convicted him under sectior5 302, P.P.C. And sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.3,000 in default to undergo 3 months' R.I. Further. Also ordered to pay Rs.3,000 as compensation to the heirs of the deceased, in default to undergo three months' R.I. Convict has appealed through jail.
2. Khalid appellant had a grudge against his father that he was not being allowed adequate maintenance and control over the income. According to the prosecution at about mid-night on 5- 10-1983 the appellant sprinkled patrol on his father and set fire to it as a result of which the bedding and his clothes caught fire. P.W.3 Mst. Muzammal daughter of deceased tried to intervene but the appellant threatened her with death. She rushed to the nearby house of her uncle and apprised P.W.4 Abdur Rahman her cousin. The two rushed back alongwith Faizur Rehman's (not produced).
They put of the fire. Thereafter, appellant's paternal-uncle Muhammad Ashraf, who had parked his taxi there that night, rushed Faujdar Khan in his taxi to the D.H.Q. Hospital Sheikhupura in the company of Abdur Rehman's. P.W.5 Dr. Khalid Yazdani, Medical Officer through his prescription Exh.
P.D. Referred the injured to Mayo Hospital, Lahore where he was admitted in the East Surgical Ward and died at 4-50 a.m. On 6-10-1983. It was certified by the Doctor Incharge of that Hospital. The dead body was brought in an Ambulance to the village. Thereafter, Abdur Rehman's proceeded to make report to the police, when he met with P.W.6 Tufail Ahmad S.I. Near the canal bank close to his Dera and made report Exh. P.C. To him on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Was registered at Police Station Khanqah Dogran the same day at 10-00 a. m. After inspection of the spot the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination.
3. P.W.5 Dr. Khalid Yazdani, Medical Officer held the autopsy on the dead body of Faujdar Khan.
According to him the body was wholly burnt from head to feet, skin patches were removed from some parts of the body which was putrified. Internal organs were congested. In his opinion death was due to severe shock, suffocation and pain of burning. P.W.6 Tufail Ahmad S.I. On 7-10-1983 arrested the accused. After usual investigation the accused was sent up for trial.
4. In his defence at the trial Khalid accused denied guilt and ascribed the case to enmity and party-faction with Abdur Rehman's P.W. He added that he had long-standing enmity with Makhdooms, Dogars and those who belonged to Oad tribe and these persons got him involved falsely. Further, according to him about 20 years earlier Makhdooms fired at his father as a result of which his leg was amputated and that the present murder was committed by one Ajmal, a brother-in-law of sand Makhdoom. In support of his statement Khalid led no evidence in defence.
Trial Court however, examined Mst. Hamida Bibi appellant's mother as Court witness. She exonerated her son and said that he was falsely roped in by his first cousin Abdur Rehman's and his own sister.
5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State in this case and gone through the record. In his grounds of appeal through jail, the appellant has reiterated his enmity with his fir- st cousin and added that they wanted to usurp his land and also cause hindrance in his marriage but these assertions are not to be found in the cross-examination of Abdur Rehman's. There is nothing in thee cross-examination of Mst. Muzammal, sister of the appellant and P.W. Abdur Rehman's informant, first cousin of the accused. They have no enmity with the accused although it was suggested to both that because of their illicit relations they had been reprimanded by the appellant and the deceased and that in fact that they had set fire to Faujdar Khan but this story is not supported by the Court witness wino was present in the house. Although she has not accused the appellant of the offence but had there been any truth in the circumstances put to the two eye- witnesses in the cross-examination A Mst. Hamida would have admitted it. It is noteworthy that she has not said a word about illicit relations of her daughter with the informant. This, therefore, appears to be a cooked up story. In any case if we look to the defence of the appellant put up by him in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. We find that he has put up an altogether different story and accused strangers of the murder. This contradictory position makes the defence version doubtful. I see no reason why his own sister should depose against him. The case is overwhelming against the appellant. This appeal thus fails and is dismissed with the modification that the sentence of fine is reduced to Rs. 10 only in default to undergo 7 days' R.I. The sentence of imprisonment for life is, however, maintained. In view of the close relationship of the parties there shall be no order as to compensation which is remitted.