Anwarul Haq, C. J.--The appellant Shaman has been con victed under section 302, P. P. C. by the learned Sessions Judge at Gujranwala, and sentenced to undergo transportation for life for causing the death of his co-villager Shera son of Jawaya. The incident occurred at about 8 or 9 a.m. on the 12th April 1966 in a field of the appellant situate in village Bhobra in the jurisdiction of Police Station, Sukheki. The matter was reported at the Police Station, at a distance of 5 miles at 12- 45 p.m. the same day by Yara (P. W. 2), who is a paternal uncle of the deceased. The first information report was recorded by A. S. I. Bashir Ahmad (P. W. 10).
2. The facts are very simple. At the relevant time the deceased Shera was grazing cattle in the fields adjoining that of the appellant. One of the buffaloes strayed into the field of the appellant, whereupon the appellant who was working in another lield 4 or 5 killas away, rushed toward abusing the deceased. It is stated that the deceased immediately started driving away the buffalo from the appellant's field but the appellant caught up with him aud . ? a blow on the head of the deceased with the blunt side of the hatchet which the appellant was carrying at that time. On receiving the blow the deceased fell down and became unconscious. The incident was witnessed by Yara (P. W. 2), Khaira (P. W. 3) and Khan (P. W. 4) and two other persons namely, Nazir and Allah Ditta son of Bahawal, who were, however, not produced at the trial.
3. The appellant managed to run away from the scene of offence carrying his hatchet with him. He was arrested on the 17th of April 1966 and voluntarily produced the hatchet Exh. P. 3 before the police. This was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh. P. E. in the presence of Muhammad Akbar (P. W. 7) and one Malla who was given up by the prosecution. The hatchet was, however, not found to be stained with blood of any kind on chemical examination.
4. The post-mortem examination of the dead body of Shera deceased was performed by Dr. Muhammad Hafeez Khan, who found that there was a contused wound on the top of the head li"x|" bone deep. The sutures of the fronto parietal and occipital region were found to have been opened.
There was thus a fracture of the skull which was found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
5. The appellant pleaded not guilty at the trial and asserted that he had been falsely implicated at the instance of Malla who was inimical on account of the fact that sometime ago some relatives of the appellant had murdered one Shera son of Dad, a maternal cousin of Malla. In cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses an attempt was also made to suggest that in fact the present murder had been committed by the appellant's partner or servant, named, Kainira but the witnesses had tried to save the real culprit owing to the influence of Malla as they belonged to this man's party. However, no defence evidence was produced in support of this assertion.
6. After perusing the evidence brought on the record aud hearing the learned counsel for the appellant at length, we have not been left in any doubt that there is ample evidence to connect the appellant with this crime. In the first place, there is the important circumstance that the murder had taken place in a field of the appellant. In the second place, there is the ocular evidence of three witnesses, namely, Yara, Kbaira aud Khan, who had no motive whatsoever to falsely substitute the appellant for the real culprit. The suggestion that they were influenced in this behalf by Malla, who was inimical towards the appellant, finds no support from the record. It is not shown that Malla was indeed inimical towards the appellant, or that Malla had any special influence over the eye-witnesses. Yara, as already stated, is the paternal uncle of the deceased, and in his evidence there is not the slightest indication that he is deposing falsely at the instance of Malia. The incident has taken place during broad daylight when the witnesses would be naturally expected to be present in their fields. Yara and Khaira were, at the relevant time, cutting the wheat crop belonging to one Allah Ditta Khan has asserted that he had gone to the fields to take meals to the deceased who was grazing Khan's cattle. We find no reason whatsoever to disbelieve these witnesses. They are undoubtedly connected with the deceased, but they have no enmity against the appellant, and, therefore, no reason has been made out to disbelieve their evidence.
7. The matter was reported at the Police Station without any avoidable delay. We consider, therefore, that the learned trial Judge was right in placing reliance upon the ocular evidence of witnesses who had the opportunity of seeing the commission of the crime.
8. An attempt was made by the learned counsel for the appellant to argue that the investigation in this case had not been conducted by a competent Police Officer in terms of section 156, Cr. P. C. as A. S. I. Bashir Ahmad was not the Station House Officer. We have examined the police diaries and we find that when the matter was reported at the Police Station, the Station House Officer was stated to be out of the Police Station and, therefore, the A. S. I. proceeded to the spot and undertook the investigation of the case. The police record shows that the investigation was duly verified by the District Inspector of Police. Section 156, Cr. P. C. does not lay down in any mandatory terms that the investigation cannot be carried out by an officer other than the Station House Officer ; in fact the section expressly authorises the S. U. O. to depute one of his officers not below the rank of A. S. I. to proceed, to the spot, and investigate the facts and circumstances of the case. In this case the investigation has been verified< by a Senior Officer, namely, the District Inspec tor of Police. We also find that subsection (2) of section 156, Cr. P. C. specifically lays down that no proceeding of a Police Officer shall be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. Finally, it is well settled that any illegality or irregularity in the investigation does not vitiate the trial.
9. Having found that there is reliable evidence to establish that the death of Shera deceased was caused by the appellant, and no one else, the question is whether the offence falls within the purview of section 302, P. P. C. or section 304, of the same Code. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that only one blow was caused, and that too with the blunt side of the hatchet. It is argued that if indeed the intention of the appellant had been to cause death, there was no reason to prevent him from using the sharp edge of the hatchet. [6] correct that the facts and circumctances of the case show that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant such as could burden him with the intention of causing death; but it is clear that he must be burdened with the intention of causing such bodily injury as he knew to be likely to cause the death of the deceased. It is well known among the villages of the Punjab that any blow delivered with some force, on the head of a victim by a dang or the blunt side of a hatchet is generally fatal. The case will, therefore, fall within the purview of the second clause of section 300, P.
P. C. In the alternative it would also fall within the ambit of the third and fourth clauses of the same section ; as the appellant must be burdened with intention as well as knowledge to the effect that the bodily injury intended to be caused by hint was imminently dangerous and was bound to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This is precisely what has in fact happened in this case. The deceased could not even reach the hospital and expired on the way. We consider, therefore, that in the circumstances the offence committed by the appellant is that of murder.
11. For the foregoing reasons the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. .