JUDJMENT RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.- Appellant Khalid Javed, aged 25 years, was sent up by Police Station Satellite Town, Gujranwala, for an offence under section 302 PPC for the murder of his father-in-law Muhammad Sharif. The case was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, who vide his judgment dated 13-12-1987, convicted him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- or in defauIt to undergo one year R.I. He was further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased or in defauIt 2 years R.I. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C., has also been given to him. Khalid Javed convict has appealed against his conviction and sentence.
Prosecution story in brief as disclosed by Zulfiqar PW is that 6/7 years before the occurrence his sister Mst. Parveen Akhtar was married to Khalid Javed appellant. During this wed-lock two issues were born who were alive. Said Khalid Javed did not do any work, 6/7 months before the occurrence he came to the house of the first informant along with his wife and children and started living there. His expenses were borne by the father of the first informant. 10/12 days before the occurrence the father of the firstinformant advised Khalid Javed appellant and asked him that he should do some work and support his family. Khalid Javed did not like this and left the house with threats. On 29-7-1986 at about schriwcla the first informant along with his father Muhammad Sharif, his mother Mst. Rasoolan Bibi and sister Mst. Perveen Akhtar were sleeping in the court-yard when sombody knocked at the door. All of them were woke up. His sister Mst. Perveen Akhtar opened the door when Khalid Javed appellant armed with a gun came in and fired at Muhammad Sharif, hitting on the left side of the chest. The pellet went through the body of Muhammad Sharif who fell down and died at the spot. Khalid Javed appellant managed to slip away from the scene along with his gun.
3. Complainnt, Exh. PC was lodged on 29-7-1986 at 4.30 a.m., by Zulfiqar Ali PW-5 in the area of Rashid Colony, Fcrozcwala Road, at a shop where Muhammad Siddiq Inspector was present.
Formal FIR Exh. PC/1 was recorded by Muhammad Yousuf, Moharrir Headconstablc, PW-8 at the Police Station on the same day.
4. After recording the complaint, Exh. PC< Muhammad Siddique, investigating officer along with other police officials came to the spot and prepared injury statement, Exh. PG and inquest report, Exh.PH of the dead body and, thereafter, sent the same for post-mortem examination. He took into possession one empty cartridge P-3 from the spot and sealed it into a parcel, vide memo Exh. PE.
He recorded the statements of the witnesses at the spot.
5. Nazir, ASI, Police Station Satellite Town Gujranwala, PW-9 also partly investigated the case. He took into possession the last worn clothes of the deceased, vide memo Exh. PA. He arrested the accused on 29- 7-1986 near a Canal Bridge of Chhichhar Wali. He took into possession Gun P-5 along with a cartridge P-4 from the accused and secured the same into a parcel vide memo Exh.
PF. He got the said memos attested from the witnesses and recorded their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C.
Dr. Muhammad Akhtar Lang, PW-11, on 29-7-1986, conducted the post-mortem examination on the deadbody of Muhammad Sharif and found the following injurics:-
1. 6 gun shot pellets wound in an area of 7 c.m. x 4 c.m. All elliptical in shape with blackened margins (wounds of entry) on the front of left chest 1.5 c.m. Above left nipple and 5 c.m. From midline.5 gun shot pellet wound with everted margins all elliptical in shape in an area of 6 c.m. x 1 c.m. On.Posterior axillary line 5 c.m. Below left scapula and 20 c.m. Below left shoulder joint (exit wound)
3. A gun shot pellet wound measuring 1 c.m. x .8 c.m. All elliptical in shape in mid axillary line 13 c.m.
Below left axilla. Margins were everted, (exit wound). Distance of fire was approximately within 3 yards.In his opinion, the death had occurred due to injury No.1 which was sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury No.1 was antemortem.
6. The prosecution in support of its case produced 11 witnesses in all. Imtiaz Hussain, Footconstable, PW-1 on 1-9-1986 took scaled parcels containing gun and empty to the Office of Forensic Science Laboratory but he could not deposit on the same day, therefore, on the next day he deposited the said parcels in the respective office. PW-4, Arif Hussain, Draftsman, prepared the site plans, Exhs. PB and PB/1 of the place of occurrence on the pointation of the PWs. The eye witness account has been furnished by Zulifiqar Ali, brother-in-law of the appellant and Mst. Parvccn Akhtar PWs 5 and 6 respectively. PW-7 Muhammad Yaqoob had witnessed the recovery of crime empty P-1 from the spot. PW-8 Muhammad Yousuf, ASI, had recorded the formal FIR, Exh.PC/1. Nazir, ASI, PW-9 had partly investigated the case and arrested the accused. He had also taken into possession Gun P-5 and live cartridge P-6 from the possession of the appellant at the time of his arrest. The investigation was conducted by Muhammad Siddiquc, Inspector, PW-10 who submitted the challan at the completion of the investigation. Dr. Muhammad Akhtar Lang, PW-11 conducted the post- mortem examination of the deceased.
The learned Prosecutor gave up Mst. Rasoolan Bibi, Muhammad Inayat, Nisar Ahmed, Muhammad Suleman and Muhammad Ijaz PWs as unnecessary and tendered in evidence the report of the Serologist, Exh. PL and report of the Chemical Examiner, Exh. PM as well as the report of the Forcnsie Science Laboratory, Exh.PK and closed the prosecution case.
7. At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence the appellant was examined under section 342 Cr.P.C., wherein he refuted the entire prosecution allegations. He further submitted that during the days of occurrence he was working as Munshi at some brick-kiIn and was receiving Rs. 1,000/- per mensem. He further stated that his father-in-law Muhammad Sharif deceased along with PWs used to pressurize him to sell his house so that his wife's brother Zulfiqar Ali PW could be got married. On his refusal, they nourished grudge against him. He had asserted that at the lime of the offence none of the PWs was present at the spot. The appellant also appeared on oath in his defence and pleaded innocence.
It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant has not been proved at all. Submits that the eye witnesses are highly interested and inimical, therefore, they may not be relied upon. Submits that the learned trial Court has disbelieved the witnesses so far as the motive is concerned, therefore, they cannot be relied upon with regard to the main occurrence till their statements are corroborated by the independent witnesses. Submits that the occurrence took place at night, therefore, it was impossible for the witnesses to identity the assailant. The contentions have been controverted by learned counsel for the Stale.
8. I have heard learned counsel at lenght and gone through the evidence with their assistance. The occurrence took place inside the house of the deccssed where his wife, son Zulfiqar Ali PW and dauhler Mst. Pcrvccn Akhtar were also sleeping. In these circumstances they become natural witnesses. The defence has not challenged the venue of occurrence at all. The took place at sehriwcla and all the inmates of the house are expected to be present at that time. Their sleeping in the court-yard of the house is also natural because the occurrence took place on 29th July, 1987 when normally the people sleep outside their houses in those days.
9. The ocular account has been furnished by Zulfiqar Ali and Mst. Pervecn Akhtar PWs 5 and 6 respectively. They have given the details of the occurrence the way it transpired. They have stated that they identified the assailant who was armed with gun with which he fired at their father killing him at the spot. Both the witnesses have been cross-examined at lenght but the defence has not suggested to any of the witnesses any motive for false involvement nor any mala fide has been suggested by the defence, It has come in evidence that the appellant was the husband of Mst.
Pervecn Akhtar daughter of the deceased but they were cousins as well. In these circumstances, if they had grown up together and lived since child-hood the question of identify of the appellant cannot be seriously challenged. Even otherwise also it had come in evidence of Mst. Pervecn Akhtar PW-6 that when the appellant entered the house her mother Mst. Rasoolan Bibi enquired about the identity of the person knocking at the door and the appellant gave his name but this part of the statement of the witness has gone unchallenged. Therefore, I hold that the eye witnesses were present at the spot and the occurrence took place in their house. They have seen the occurrence and were able to identify the assailant.
The gun recovered from the possession of the appellant at the time of his arrest and the crime empties secured from the spot were sent to the Office of Forensic Science Laboratory, According to the said report the crime empty was fired from the gun recovered at the instance of the appellant.
This provides corroboration to the statement of the witnesses.
For what has been discussed above, I hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any doubt, therefore, the appeal fails which is accordingly dismissed.