Riaz Ahmad son of Ghulam Sarwar, aged 30, armed with hatchet, stands convicted vide judgment, dated 20-4-1985 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh under section 302, P.P.C. For the murder of Sher Ali, aged 65, his paternal-uncle, and was sentenced to life imprisonment plus fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to undergo one year further rigorous imprisonment with the direction that he should pay compensation amounting to Rs.5,000 to the heirs of the deceased or in default thereof to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. He was also given the benefit of provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Against the aforesaid judgment he has filed this appeal through jail which is being disposed of by this judgment.
2. The occurrence is stated to have taken place at 11-30 p.m. On 19-9-1983 within the area of Chak No. 663/4-G.B. At a distance of six kilometers from Police Station Pir Mahal, District Toba Tek Singh.
F.I.R. (Exh.P.G.) was lodged by Khadim Hussain (P.W.8) son of the deceased at 7-15 a.m. On 20-9- 1983 and it was recorded by All Khan S.I. (P.W.10).
3. The motive for crime as stated in the F.I.R. Is that the appellant was a bad character and the deceased had stopped him from coming to his house. The witness of the motive is Khadim Hussain P.W. Who is cousin of the appellant.
4. The prosecution has produced two eye-witnesses of the occurrence namely, Shamir Ali (P.W.9) brother of the deceased and other uncle of the appellant and Khadim (P.W.8) son of the deceased and cousin of the appellant. Third eye-witness namely, Mansab Ali maternal-uncle of Khadim Hussain P.W. Was not produced and given up as unnecessary.
5. The appellant was arrested on 29-9-1983 by Ali Khan S.I. (P.W.10). At the pointing out of the appellant was recovered blood-stained hatchet (Exh.P.4) from Sarkanda which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.F., dated 25-9-1983. The attesting witnesses of this recovery are Muhammad Yusuf (P.W.6) an unconnected person, Ali Khan (P.W.10) and Shahmand (not produced). According to the report of the Serologist (Exh.P.K.) hatchet (Exh.P.4) was found to be stained with human blood.
6. In the F.I.R. The occurrence is reported to have taken place in the following manner: On the fateful day along with the deceased were present Shamir Ali (P.W.9), Khadim Husain (P.W.8) and Mansab Ali (not produced) in the Behak of the deceased in Killa No. 10 of Square No. 36 of the aforesaid Chak. They were having conversation about Rishtas. At about 11-30 p.m. When it was moonlit night and the deceased was lying on the cot whereas Khadim Hussain P.W. Along with Shamir Ali P.W.
And Mansab Ali (not produced) were talking to each other while sitting on their cots near the cot of the deceased, the appellant armed has described above, came there and raised a Lalkara to the effect that no one should get up and that he would teach a lesson to the deceased for having forbidden him from coming to his house. He also threatened that anyone who came near, he would kill him. Thereafter, the appellant inflicted hatchet blow which fell on the head of the deceased while he was lying on the cot. He inflicted the second blow with the blunt side which fell on the right cheek of the deceased. Then he inflicted third hatchet blow from the wrong side which fell on the right side of the chest of the deceased. Fourth blow from the blunt side of hatchet hit him underneath the arm near the chest on the left side and the fifth hatchet blow from wrong side hit on the back of left shoulder. The eye-witnesses raised alarm but the appellant managed to escape. They did not go near out of fear. After arrangement of conveyance the deceased was removed in the morning time on a tractor trolley in an injured condition to the civil hospital Pir Mahal. On reaching the hospital he succumbed to the injuries. Leaving behind Shamir Ali P.W. To guard the dead body of the deceased, Khadim Hussain P.W. Proceeded to lodge the report.
7. Dr. Ghulam Dastgir (P.W.2) performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 20-9-1983 at 4-30 p.m. He had been brought to the hospital in a serious condition and was given emergency treatment but just after ten minutes he expired. The deceased had the following injuries on his person:---
(1) An incised wound 5" x 1" x bone deep on the right side of forehead and head 3" above the right ear.
(2) A contusion 3" x 2" on the right cheek with the swelling of whole of right side of face.
(3) An abraded contusion 3 --x 1-3/4 on the left side of chest just above the left nipple.
(4) An abraded contusion 2-3/4" x-- " on the front of top of left arm.
(5) An abraded contusion 1" xon the left anterior axillary fold.
In the opinion of the Medical Officer death had occurred due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injury No. 1 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
8. The appellant in his statement before the trial Court denied having participated in the occurrence and stated that the P.Ws. Had deposed against him as they wanted to usurp his share of land. According to the defence version the deceased was killed by some unknown thieves in the night and the occurrence was an unwitnessed one. But the prosecution witnesses made out a false story to implicate the appellant falsely in this case. He further stated that since he was in jail and helpless he could not arrange to produce any defence evidence.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the State and carefully perused the record. The prosecution story is supported by the two eye-witnesses in the instant case who have correctly been held to be natural witnesses of the occurrence as they owned portion of their landed property there and were residing with the deceased. Admittedly the occurrence took place at the Dera of the deceased and Shamir Ali as well as Khadim Hussain P.Ws. Had satisfied the trial Court that they were present on the spot as natural witnesses of the occurrence when it took place. The ocular testimony in the instant case cannot be rejected merely for the reason that the P.Ws. Were closely related to the deceased unless and until it could be shown that they had a motive to falsely implicate the appellant and that their ocular testimony was uncorroborated. In the instant case the ocular testimony is being corroborated by the recovery evidence, for it was on the pointation of the appellant that human blood-stained hatchet (Exh.P.4) was recovered from Sarkanda and taken into possession by the police. The attesting witnesses of this recovery are unconnected and, therefore, there is no reason why the recovery evidence should not be relied upon. Furthermore, the ocular testimony is being supported also by the medical evidence. The trial Court has awarded lesser penalty to the appellant for the reason that the motive has not been fully explained and it has only been advanced to the extent that the deceased had forbidden the appellant from visiting his house. Since the ocular testimony is being corroborated by the recovery evidence and is also being supported by the medical evidence as well as the motive version, in my view the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case as against the appellant. Consequently in the circumstances his conviction as well as sentence awarded to the appellant were quite proper and are accordingly maintained. The result is that this appeal through jail fails and is accordingly dismissed.