' AFRASIAB KHAN, J.-- The appellant Ghulam Razzaq son of Karam Khan was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. And was sentenced to death plus fine of Rs.20,000 and in default thereof to suffer 2 years' R.I. By the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Attock side his judgment dated 24-2-1986. It was directed that the fine, if realised shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation. The appellant has filed this appeal against his conviction and sentence. Murder Reference No. 72/R of 1986 is also pending adjudication before us for confirmation. We propose to dispose of the Murder Reference and the Criminal Appeal together by this judgment.
2. Briefly the facts are that a murder case was registered against the appellant on the statement of Muhammad Arshad son of Akbar Khan with Police Station Railway Attock City on 31-3-1985. The complainant stated that on 31-31985 he had to go to Attock in connection with his private affairs. At about 7-15 a.m. He was standing at the platform of Railway Station, Jhalar and was waiting for the arrival of the rail-car. Just close to the complainant, Muhammad Khan son of Sher Khan was also standing there. Muzaffar Iqbal (hereinafter to be referred as deceased) was employed as Gang- mate in the Railway. He was busy in his official duty at the Railway Station, Jhalar just in front of him. In the meantime the appellant who was also an employee of the Railway as a Gangman went towards the deceased hurriedly. A leather bag and an iron wrench were lying near the deceased.
The appellant picked up the iron wrench of the deceased and attacked him declaring that he had been making baseless complaints against him to the higher Railway officials and that he will be taught a lesson for this, adding that the deceased was very harsh towards him during his duty hours. On receipt of injuries, the deceased fell down. The appellant fled away. The incident was witnessed by Akbar (P.W.7) Points-man Railway Station, Jhalar (the complainant) and Muhammad Khan. They rushed towards the deceased but by then Muzaffar lqbal had become unconscious on account of the injuries inflicted on him. After some time a rail-car arrived at Jhalar Railway Station.
The complainant and Muhammad Khan carried the deceased to a compartment of the rail-car.
When it reached Railway Station, Attock City, the deceased was brought down but by that time he was dead.
3. Motive for the crime was that about 2/3 days before the occurrence the appellant and the deceased had quarrelled with each other and the former had threatened the latter (deceased) with dire consequences. Muhammad Ashraf and Sher Zaman intervened and separated them.
4. Muhammad Aslam S.I./S.H.O., P.S. Railway Station, Attock City investigated the case. He stated that on 31-3-1985 at 8-15 a.m. He recorded the F.I.R. Exh.P.E. On the statement of Muhammad Arshad complainant. He came to the platform of Railway Station Attock, where the dead body was lying.
He prepared the injury statement Exh.P.F. And inquest report of the deceased Exh.P.G. Thereafter he sent the dead body through Ejaz Hussain Shah, A.S.I. For post-mortem examination to Civil Hospital, Attock. An identity card, a note of Rs.5, two keys and a wrist watch were taken into possession from the person of the deceased vide memo. Exh.P.H. He also inspected the spot. Blood-stained earth and three blood-stained stones were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.D. He also prepared the site plan Exh.P.1 of the place of occurrence. The appellant was arrested on 31-3-1985 and while in police custody, he led to the recovery of iron wrench Exh.P.4 on 1-4-1985 which was found blood- stained. The wrench was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.C.
5. The Chemical Examiner vide his report Exh.P.K. Stated that the earth, stones and iron wrench were stained with blood. The report of Serologist Exh.P.L. Shows that the said items No.582/1 and 582/2 were stained with human blood.
6. Dr. Rehmat Elahi Chughtai P.W.10 conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Muzaffar Iqbal and found the following injuries on his person:-
(1) Lacerated wound on right side of forehead, its direction was horizontal 2" x 1/2" x going into skull cavity, underlying tissues were depressed.
(2) A lacerated wound on forehead 1" below injury No.1 having dimension of 1/2" x 1/4" x deep into skull cavity.
(3) A lacerated wound in middle of forehead near hair line 1-1/4" from injury No.1 having dimension of 3/4" x 1/4" by skull cavity.
(4) A lacerated wound 1/2" inner to injury No.4 having dimension 1" x 1/4" x going deep into tissues and skull cavity.
(5) A lacerated wound 1" outer to injury No.1 having dimension 1" x 1/8" x skull cavity.
(6) A lacerated wound 1" above injury No. 3 having dimension 1/2" x 1/2" x going deep into skull cavity.
(7) A lacerated wound on right side of head 3" above right ear 1-1/2" x 1/2" going deep into skull cavity.
(8) A lacerated wound on right side of face below right eye 1" x 1/4" going deep into tissues.
(9) A lacerated wound on bony part of nose 1" x 1/6" x deep into nosal cavity.
(10) An abrasion on upper lip 1-1/4" x 1/2".
(11) Two incisors of upper jaw were missing; multiple abrasions on upper lip, each measuring about 1/2" x 1/4".
(12) Both eyes were black.
(13) Clotted blood in both the ears, nose and mouth present.
' According to the Medical Officer, scalp and skull were injured against injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and
7. Membrane and brain were injured on account of injuries Nos. 1 to 7. Stomach contained eight ounces of semi-digested food. Large intestine contained faeces and bladder contained urine. Skull of the deceased was fractured due to injuries Nos. 1 to 7 and the right side of facial bone was fractured due to injury No.8. In the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries were ante-mortem and were caused by blunt weapon. Injuries Nos. 1 to 9 and 11 and 13 were grievous while injuries Nos. 10 and 12 were simple. The death took, place on account of shock, haemorrhage and injury to brain due to injuries Nos. 1 to 7. All the injuries were sufficient to cause death individually as well as collectively in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time between death and injuries was about two hours and between death and post-mortem about one hour and thirty minutes vide post-mortem report Exh.P.J.
7. The eye-witness account has been provided by Ghulam Akbar, P.W.7 and Muhammad Ashraf P.W.B. As stated earlier Muhammad Ashraf P.W.8 is the first informant. He supported the prosecution case from beginning to end.
8. The appellant while making his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the allegations levelled against him. While answering question No.10, he stated that all the witnesses were related inter se and also to the deceased and that they had deposed against him on account of enmity and suspicion. He further stated that the occurrence had not been witnessed by anybody and that the deceased was done to death by unknown persons early in the morning before sunrise. He further stated that his niece was divorced with connivance of Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Khan P.Ws. And that they were inimically disposed towards him. He mentioned that besides him, there were 14/15 people working under the deceased and that he had dispute with his other subordinates and might have been murdered by anyone of them. The appellant also made statement under section 340, Cr.P.C. Wherein he pleaded that he did not commit the murder of the deceased, the motive had been fabricated and the recovery of the iron wrench had been planted on him to provide support to the prosecution case.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Ghulam Akbar P.W.7 had not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. Muhammad Arshad P.W.8 is an interested witness being a first cousin of the deceased, his evidence could not be relied upon because he was standing at a distance of 200 feet away from the place of occurrence and as such could not see the occurrence from such a long distance. The learned counsel further argued that since at the relevant time the rail-car was about to arrive a number of passengers must have been present at the platform. On these premises, he argued that the prosecution could produce some independent and impartial witnesses in order to prove its case but that was not done. Lastly, he argued that as motive had not been proved the appellant deserved lesser penalty.
11. The learned State counsel submitted that the F.I.R. Had been promptly lodged although the police station is at a distance of 18 kilometres away from the place of occurrence. According to him the ocular account supported by medical evidence proves the case beyond any doubt.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have perused the record. It may be noted that the occurrence had taken place at 7-15 a.m. And the report was promptly lodged by Muhammad Arshad P.W.8 at 8-15 on 31-3-1985 although the police station was situated at a distance of 18 kilometres from the place of occurrence. We are, therefore, pursuaded to hold that there was absolutely no time available to the complainant party to concoct case against the appellant. As observed earlier Muhammad Arshad P.W.8 is the first informant and Ghulam Akbar is another eye-witness. The non-examination of Muhammad Khan, the third eye- witness cannot be considered as fatal to the prosecution. Although Ghulam Akbar P.W.7 was declared hostile, yet we do not find anything wrong with his evidence inasmuch as his statement is straightfoward and consistent to the prosecution version. There was no material on record which justified to declare him as hostile. His evidence incriminates the appellant in the commission of the crime. His statement is in line with the statement made by the first informant. Assuming for the sake of argument that his evidence is excluded out of consideration, yet sufficient evidence is available against the appellant through the statement of Muhammad Arshad P.W.B. No doubt, Muhammad Arshad is the first cousin of the deceased but he cannot be termed as an interested witness. If he had not been present at the spot, we are sure that the F.I.R. Could not have been lodged with such promptitude. Therefore, the facts and circumstantial evidence available on the record do persuade us to believe that Muhammad Arshad P.W.8 was present at the spot and he had seen the occurrence. He was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but his evidence could not be shattered.
13. The objection of the learned counsel that since Muhammad Arshad P.W.8, first informant was standing at a distance of 200 feet away he could not see the occurrence is without any substance.
There was no train at the station at the relevant time and everything must be clearly visible.
14. We do not find any material on the record to show that the appellant has been falsely involved in the case. This was a day time occurrence and also a case of single accused. There seems to be no possibility of the substitution of the appellant.
15. So far as the motive is concerned, the same has also been proved by the evidence of Muhammad Ashraf P.W.6. He categorically stated that 2/3 days prior to the occurrence, he found Muzaffar Iqbal deceased and Ghulam Razzaq appellant quarrelling with each other at the Railway platform near the Railway line. In his presence the appellant made a complaint that the deceased had been complaining against him to the higher Railway officials and that he had been harshly treating him. According to him, the appellant while departing issued threats to the deceased of dire consequences.
' The recovery of wrench P.4 at the instance of the appellant is also established. The wrench, as observed earlier, was found stained with humand blood vide Serologist's report Exh.P.L. The appellant inflicted as many as 13 injuries on the person of the deceased. Injuries Nos. 1 to 9, 11 and 13 were grievous. By inflicting such a large number of injuries on vital parts of the deceased intention of the appellant is clearly made out.
' The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. He was, therefore, rightly convicted.
As regards the quantum of sentence, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant had gone to the spot empty-handed thus the possibility cannot be ruled out that the parties might have exchanged hot words before the main occurrence over the harsh attitude of the deceased towards the appellant. Considering it as a mitigating circumstance we think that the ends of justice will be met if the appellant is awarded lesser sentence provided for the offence of murder. We and alter the sentence of death to imprisonment for life. However, the sentence of fine is maintained. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed.
' The death sentence is NOT confirmed. .