MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--Murder Reference No. 32 of 1984/BWP and Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 1984/BWP, which are being decided by mens of this consolidated judgment, arse out of the judgment, dated 9-10-1984, pronounced by Syed Akhtar Naqvi, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, who had convicted Muhammad Shafique alias Papoo, appellant, under section 302, P.P.C. And had awarded him death sentence and a fine of Rs.3,000. In default of the payment of fine, he was directed to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. The compensation to the heirs of the deceased as envisaged under section 544--A, Cr.P.C. Were not awarded.
2. The facts, which led to the detection of this crime, in substance, are that Babu Din, the complainant, along with Usman son of Babu Khan and Abdul Rehman son of Hassan Bakhsh were returning home on 13-11-1981 at about 2-30 p.m. After saying Jumma prayer. Budhan, the grandfather of Babu Din complainant, was going 10/12 Karams ahead of them. When they entered a lane, namely, Koocha Anjuman Qureshi, the appellant came from the opposite direction, who was armed with a dagger. The appellant demanded money from Budhan and tried to search his pocket in the hope that he would rob him of money, as Budhan was a businessman. Budhan offered resistance and the appellant gave blows on the buttocks, left thigh and the forearm of Budhan, who fell down. Muhammad Usman and Abdul Rehman rushed to the spot and witnessed this occurrence. They tried to apprehend the appellant but he threatened them with dire consequences and succeeded in running away with the weapon of offence. Budhan had Rs.10 only with him at that time. Babu Din went to lodge the report and he met Jaffar Hussain Shah S.H.O.
P.W.13 on his way to the police station and he lodged the report with him. The formal F.I.R. Exh. P.E./1 was recorded by the said Jaffar Hussain Shah.
3. The injured was medically examined by Dr. Abdul Hameed Malik, P.W.1, who observed the following injuries on the person of Budhan:-
(1) Incised wound 1" x 1-1/4" x bone deep on the middle finger of left hand cutting a piece of bone with it.
(2) Incised wound 1" x 1/2" muscle deep on the upper part of front of left forearm. Bleeding profusely.
On some dissection, the brachial artery was found cut.
(3) Incised wound 1/2" x 1/2"muscle deep on the medial side of lower part of left upper arm caused as exit wound on injury No.2.
(4) Incised wound 1-1/2 x 1/2" x 3-1/2" bone deep on the upper and medial quardrant of right buttock.
(5) Incised wound 1" x 1-1/4" x 3-1/2" on the middle of lower part of right buttock.
(6) Incised wound 1" x 1/3" x 3-1/2" on the back of upper part of right thigh bleeding.
(7) Superficial incised wound 1/2" x skin deep on the lower part right buttock 1-1/2" lateral to injury No. 5.
(8) Incised wound 3" x 1" on the lower and medial quardrant of right buttock.
(9) Incised wound 1/2" x skin deep on the medial and lower quardrant of left buttock.
4. Budhan died on the same day at about 5-15 p.m. And Dr. Abdul Hameed Malik listed almost the same injuries on his dead body. This Medical Expert has opined that the cause of death was syncope due to excessive bleeding from injuries Nos. 2 and 3 that cut the brachial artery of left arm.
The other injuries were found to be simple in, nature.
5. The Police Officer prepared the inquest report and the injury statement. On 20-11-1981, the appellant was arrested. His blood-stained Shalwar P.1 and blood-stained shirt P.2 were taken into possession. The blood-stained dagger P.3 was recovered at the instance of the appellant on 27-11- 1981. After the completion of the investigation, the challan of the appellant was submitted. As a sequel to the impugned trial, he was awarded the aforementioned punishment.
6. Babu Din, the complainant and the grandson of Budhan deceased, appeared in the witness-box as P.W.6 and has narrated the same incident which was dictated to the Police Officer while lodging the F.I.R. He has stated that the appellant injured his grandfather within his view but he could not hear the talk between them and he guessed from the action of the appellant that he wanted to grab money from the old man. He has added that he came to know that the deceased was having Rs.10 with him when the Police Officer had searched the person of the deceased. He conceded that the appellant belonged to a rich family who owned garden, shops and agricultural land. He has also stated that the appellant had no enmity with the deceased or with them.
7. Muhammad Usman P.W.7 corroborated that he saw the appellant giving dagger blows to Budhan and he succumbed to those injuries on the same day. He also did not hear the actual words uttered by the appellant at the time of the commission of this crime and he guessed that the appellant had demanded money from Budhan and intended to snatch the same from him.
8. It is a case of the single accused and the death of Budhan was caused in broad daylight after Jumma prayer in a street. Mr. A.R. Tayyib, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant, has scrupulously conceded that he does not challenge the conviction of the appellant under section 302, P.P.C. In accordance with the statement of the learned counsel for the appellant we need not dilate on the factum of recoveries.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has, however, contended that it was a case of reduction of sentence. The motive for the commission of this offence is not very clear, because both the ocular witnesses did not hear the actual talk between the appellant and his victim before causing injuries.
They only guessed that the appellant wanted to rob the old man and had tried to search his pocket. The motive for the commission of this crime is, therefore, shrouded in mystery. Secondly, injury No. 2 on the forearm was declared to be dangerous to life and the rest of the injuries were simple in nature. Had the appellant intended to cause the death of Budhan, he would have chosen the vulnerable parts of the body of his victim but the injuries were on the non-vital parts like buttocks and the forearm. But, it may be noted that he had the knowledge that by thrusting his dagger in the forearm with full force could be imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. His case is covered by clause fourthly of section 300, P.P.C. In Muhammad Salim v. Muhammad Aslam and others 1983 SCMR 53, the accused had chosen the non-vital parts of body of his victim and he caused an injury on the knee resulting the severance of femoral artery and consequent loss of blood leading to death. The appellant was convicted under section 304, Part II, P.P.C. In this precedent, the incident was not premeditated and was a sudden affair and was covered by exception 4 of section 300, P.P.C. In a similar case cited as Munawar Hussain v. The State 1983 SCMR 1165 the femoral artery of the thigh was cut and it was held that the assailant did not intend to cause the death but he had only the knowledge that death could be imputed to the assailant.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant has also admitted that it is not a case under section 304, Part II, P.P.C. But it really falls under section 302, P.P.C. The absence of motive and the knowledge of the appellant that injury No. 2 could cause death are extenuating circumstances which go in favour of the appellant. We, therefore, maintain the conviction of the appellant under section 302, P.P.C. And reduce his sentence to imprisonment for life. The amount of fine and the consequent sentence in default thereof remains unaltered. The appellant is directed to pay Rs.5,000 (Rupees five thousand only) by way of compensation to the heirs of the deceased. In default of the payment of the compensation, he shall suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment more. The death is NOT confirmed. The reference and the appeal are decided accordingly.