Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 1984 and Criminal Revision No. 11 of 1985 have arisen out of the judgment dated 15-12-1984 pronounced by Ch. Manzoor Hussain Basra, learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, who had convicted the appellants under section 302/34, P. P. C. And awarded all of them life imprisonment. They were fined Rs. 2,000 each and in default thereof to undergo six months' R. I. Each. All of them were directed to pay Rs. 2,000 each as compensation to the heirs of Karam Khan deceased or to suffer R. I for six months in default of the payment of compensation.
The benefit of section 382-B, Cr. P. C. Was given to the appellants by the learned Sessions Judge.
Both the Criminal Appeal and the Criminal Revision are being disposed of by means of this single judgment.
2. The facts, which led to the detection of this crime, in substance, are that Karam Khan and his friends Muhammad Ashraf and Manzoor Ahmad had gone to visit the shrine of Haji Sher. From there they came to the house of Karam Khan and had their meals. They had parked their motor- cycle towards the northern side of the village on account of marshy path. Karam Khan came with Manzoor Ahmad and Muhammad Ashraf to bid them good-bye. Mst. Jindan and Mst. Ghulam Fatima mother and sister respectively of Karam Khan followed them as they intended to cut the grass from the sugarcane field. As soon as Karam Khan, Muhammad Ashraf and Manzoor Ahmad reached near the motor-cycle, Qadir Bakhsh armed with a pistol, Muhammad Ali, Ahman, Bashir Ahmad, Nazir Ahmad alias Nazra armed with hatchets, Munir Ahmad, Rashid and Jan Muhammad armed with Sotis emerged out of the sugarcane field while raising Lalkaras. Qadir Bakhsh fired his pistol at Karam Khan but missed the aim and his friends Muhammad Ashraf and Manzoor Ahmad took to their heels in order to save themselves. The assailants encircled Karam Khan who in his self-defence fired a pistol shot and injured Nazir Ahmad alias Nazra, Ahmad Bakhsh alias Ahman and Muhammad Ali appellants. Karam Khan was overpowered and was given hatchet and stick blows by the appellants. The hue and cry of Mst. Jindan complainant attracted Pir Bakhsh, Khair Muhammad, Ata Muhammad, Sikandar and Ramzan who carried Karam Khan to the Police Station where Mst. Jindan lodged the report. The motive as stated by the complainant was that Mst.
Rashidan daughter of Imam Bakhsh had abused Karam Khan and the latter had slapped her and the assailants who were her relatives killed Karam Khan on account of the said grievance.
3. Conversely, Nazir Ahmad alias Nazra also lodged a report on the same day on 3-I1-1983 at 5-00 p. m. That Muhammad Ali and Ahman were harvesting paddy crop when Karam Khan, Muhammad Ashraf and Manzoor Ahmad came there by a motor-cycle and after parking the same there, they passed by them and Karam Khan displayed his pistol to them and went to his house in the company of his friends. Nazir Ahmad added that they came back after a short while and had an altercation with them. Karam Khan fired a pistol shot which hit Muhammad Ali who fell down.
Muhammad Ashraf injured Ahman with his pistol and when Karam Khan was re-loading his pistol, Ahmad Bakhsh alias Ahman gave hatchet blow to Karam Khan. Muhammad Ashraf and Manzoor Ahmad fled away. He has also stated that he snatched the pistol from Karam Khan. This version was not accepted by the Investigating Agency.
4. Karam Khan died on the same day at 7-30 p. m. And Muhammad Ahmad S. 1. Prepared the Inquest Report and the injury statement. On 4-11-1983, Dr. Muhammad Saeed conducted the post- mortem examination of the dead body of Karam Khan and observed the following injuries on his dead body :
(1) An incised wound 15 x 12 c.m. At right leg 3 above the right ankle joint through and through the lower part of the leg was attached with a tag of skin. Muscles, blood-vessels, nerves, tendons bones (tibia and fibula) were cut under this injury.
(2) An incised wound 14 x 5 x 5 c.Rn. At right leg 1" above injury No. 1, and muscles were cut, under this injury.
(3) An incised wound 5 x 3 x 5 c.m. At left from-arm slightly below the elbow joint. Muscles, bones, blood vessels, and nerves were found cut under this injury.
(4) An incised wound 6 x I x 4 c.m. At left fore-arm. Muscles and blood-vessels were found cut under this injury.
(5) A contusion on outer side of the left leg 10 x 2 c.m. The left fibula was broken under this injury.
According to this Medical Expert, injuries Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injuries Nos. 1 to 4 were caused by a sharp-edged weapon and injury Nos. 5 was caused by a blunt weapon.
5. On 15-11-1983, the Police recovered blood-stained hatchets Exh. P. 4 to Exh P. 6 and the bloodstained Dang Exh. P. 7 from Ahmad Bakhsh alias Ahman, Bashir Ahmad, Nazir Ahmad alias Nazra and Rashid Ahmad accused respectively. On 22-11-1983, the Police recovered a bloodstained hatchet Exh. P.
8. From Muhammad Ali appellant. After the completion of the investigation, the challan of all the eight accused was submitted. As a sequel to the impugned trial, the appellants was awarded the aforementioned punishment whereas Muhammad Munir, Jan Muhammad, Ghulam Qadir, Bashir Ahmad and Rashid Ahmad were acquitted.
6. In this case, the incident took place about four acres away from the house of Mst. Jindan P. W. 12, who has deposed that her son Karam Khan had come to her house with his friends Muhammad Ashraf and Manzoor Ahmad where they stayed for one hour and left the house for the fields towards the northern side. She and her daughter Mst. Ghulam Fatima followed them as they intended to cut grass in the sugarcane field. She has stated that the appellants and their accomplices emerged out of the nearby sugarcane field and Qadir Baksh pistol shot at her son and the fired a other who were armed with hatchets and Dangs encircled Karam Khan who Karam Khan who was given injuries. Ahmad Bakhsh alias Ahman cut his left arm whereas Nazra had given a hatchet blow on the right leg of Karam Khan. She has stated that Allah Ditta and Sikandar came there and saw the occurrence and the accused ran away. She has stated that she lodged the F. I. R.
And according to her a year before this occurrence her daughter Mst. Ghulam Fatima and Mst.
Rashidan daughter of Imam Bakhsh had quarrelled with each oiher in the field and Karam Khan had slapped Ust. Rashidan and in order to slake the such of revenge the appellants and their accomplices killed her son Karam Khan. She has admitted that Karam Khan was involved in 6 or 7 theft cases and he was challaned in 4 or 5 cases.
7. Muhammad Ashraf P. W. 13 whose presence at the spot had not been denied by the defence has corroborated the statement made by the complainant. He too was challaned in a theft case but was acquitted a year prior to this occurrence. He did not visit the house of Karam Khan after his death, presumably he knew that Nazir Ahmad alias Nazra appellant had lodged the F. I. R. Against him. He has elucidated that Karam Khan fired a pistol shot on receiving the first hatchet blow.
8. Sikandar P. W. 14, who is real maternal uncle of the deceased, has stated that he had seen the appellants and their accomplices running away from the spot as he was attracted on the alarm raised by Mst. Jindan, Mst. Fatima and Azeem.
9. The story of recoveries has rightly been disbelieved by the learned trial Court as the incident took place on 3-11-1983 and the recoveries were effected on 15-11-1983 and 22-11-1983. It was not probable that the accused could not wash the blood-stains from their hatchets during this period.
The story of the motive has, however, been believed. Mst. Jindan had stated in the F.
1. R. That Karam Khan had slapped Mst. Rashidan two months prior to this occurrence. She has not introduced Mst. Ghulam Fatima in this motive when she lodged the F.
1. R. But in her statement as P.
W. 12, she deposed that Mst. Fatima and Mst. Rashidan daughter of Imam Bakhsh had quarrelled with each other in a field about one year before this occurrence and Karam Khan had slapped Mst.
Rashidan. It is a material discrepancy in her statement which falsifies the motive for the commission of this crime. Karam Khan was a man of shady antecedents t and the motive appears to be shrouded in mystery and has not been proved. It was imperative on the prosecution to have proved motive when it had been stated in the F. I. R. It' the motive is not proved, it does not prove fatal to the entire case and only the sentence can be reduced under section 302, P. P. C.
10. The incident took place in broad daylight at a short distance from the house of Mst. Lindan and she was expected to see this incident and appears to be the natural witness of this occurrence.
She and Muhammad Ashraf had no enmity against the appellants and they cannot be termed as interested witnesses. They had no motive to falsely implicate the appellants who were injured during this incident. The statements of Mst. Jindan and Muhammad Ashraf have been corroborated by Sikandar, the maternal-uncle of the deceased, and the medical evidence on the file. Although the appellants have suffered pellet wounds, yet it appears that when they encircled Karam Khan, he fired shots on them and injured them but he was overpowered by the hatchet blows given by the appellants. His right leg and the left forearm were almost chopped off and the appellants knew that with these injuries Karam Khan would certainly die so they intended to cause his death. The story of self-defence narrated by them does not ring true.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants has cited The State v. Khair-ur-Rehman (1) ; Muhammad Afzal v. The State (2) and Muhammad v. Ghaus and 4 others (3). But these precedents do not apply to the instant case. The case against the acquitted accused was not substantiated. I, therefore, dismiss this appeal as well as the revision petition.
(1) PLD 1960 (W. P.) Pesh.-50(2) 1984 P Cr. L J 7
(3) 1972 SCMR 264