' Faqir Ullah (35) and Khushi Muhammad (75) were sent up for trial for the murder of Siraj Din, under section 302/34, P.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, vide his judgment, dated 30-6- 1986, convicted and sentenced both of them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,10,000 each, or in default two years' R.I. Each. It was further directed that the fine if recovered the whole of it shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation. Both the convicts have appealed againt their convictions and sentences which shall be disposed of by this judgment.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, as disclosed in the F.I.R. Is to the effect that the first informant and his brother Siraj Din had land adjacent to the land of Faqir Ullah appellant, where he had built his residential house as well. Siraj Din, the brother of the first informant and Faqir Ullah appellant had a common tube-well which was installed through Agricultural Development Bank. They always had a dispute with regard to the expenditure of the tube-well. On 11-6-1984, Siraj Din brother of the first informant was to irrigate his fields. When he came to operate the tube well he found that Faqir Ullah appellant had removed the bolts, therefore, he removed the Pump of the tube-well and brought it to home. On the same day, at 6.30 p.m. The first informant was present on his well with Muhammad Din, they heard a fireshot and saw Faqir Ullah appellant armed with .12 bore gun and Khushi Muhammad appellant armed with Kassi going towards the haveli of Siraj Din. The first informant and his companions also started towards the said Haveli. Faqir Ullah appellant again fired but it did not hit Siraj Din. Thereafter both the appellants entered the haveli of Siraj Din. Faqir Ullah appellant gave a butt blow to Siraj Din hitting on his face and head. Khushi Muhammad appellant gave a kassi blow on the head of Siraj Din whereupon he fell down. Thereafter both the appellants gave a number of injuries to Siraj Din while he had fallen down. The commotion also attracted Nazir P.W. Who raised alarm whereupon the accused persons ran away. Said Siraj Din expired because of the injuries while he was being taken to Kanganpur Hospital.
3. F.I.R. Exh.P.E. Was lodged by Noor Ahmed, P.W.6, on 12-6-1984 at 1205 at night with regard to the occurrence which had taken place on 11-6-1984, at 6-30 p.m. It was recorded by Abdul Rashid, Sub-Inspector, P.W.10. The distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station Kanganpur was seven miles.
4. After the registration of the case, the said S.I. Abdur Rashid reached the spot and prepared inquest report, Exh.P.C. And injury statement, Exh.P.C./1 and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. After inspecting the spot, he secured blood-stained earth, vide memo. Exh.P.G. Pellets Exh.P.2/1-20 were also secured from the wall of the haveli, vide memo. Exh.P.F. Both the accused were arrested on 20-6-1984. Khushi Muhammad appellant while in custody on the same day led to the recovery of Kassi P.1, which was taken into possession, vide memo Exh.P.H.. Faqir Ullah appellant Jed to the recovery of gun P.5, on the same day from the cattleshed, which was taken into possession, vide memo Exh.P.I. He got the site plan, Exhs.P.D. And P.D./1, prepared from Patwari. After usual investigation, he challaned the appellants.
' Dr. Muhammad Rafi, Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Pattoki District Kasur, on 12-6-1984, at 9- 00 a.m., conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Siraj Din and found the following injuries:-
(1) An incised wound 4 c.m. x 2.2 c.m. Underlying bone cut through and through on the right side of forehead 1 c.m. On the mid-line 4 c.m. Above the right eye brow.
(2) Lacerated wound 5 c.m. x 5 c.m. Scalp deep on the right side of head 6 c.m. Back and 6 c.m.
Above the right ear.
(3) Lacerated wound 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. Scalp deep on the right tampo region 5 c.m. Above the right ear at 11 O'clock position.
(4) Lacerated wound 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. On the right Pinna of the ear, cartilage was crushed.
(5) Contusion around the right eye.
(6) Contusion 16 c.m. x 6 c.m. On the outer side of right chest.
(7) Contusion 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. On the front of left chest 1 c.m. From the mid-line 5 c.m. On the left nipple.
(8) Contusion 4 c.m. x 4 c.m. On the top of left shoulder.
(9) Contusion 8 c.m. x 8 c.m. On the back of right shoulder.
(10) Abrasion 5 c.m. x 5 c.m. On the back of chest upper part.
(11) Abrasion 4 c.m. x 4 c.m. On front of left thigh.
' In his opinion the death had occurred due to haemorrhage and shock due to injury to brain. He opined that injuries 1, 2 and 3 could cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
5. The prosecution in support of its case produced ten witnesses in all. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination appeared as P.W.1. Muhammad Latif, Constable, P.W.2, escorted the dead body for post-mortem examination. Allah Diwaya, P.W.3 prepared site plans, Exhs.P.D. And Exh.P.D./1 on the direction of the police. P.W.4, Allah Rakha, Head Constable, was entrusted with the parcels containing blood-stained earth and Kassi. So long the sealed parcels remained with him nobody tampered with them. The eye-witness account was furnished by Noor Ahmed, Nazir Ahmed and Muhammad Din, P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 respectively. Jamil Ahmed P.W.9, had witnessed the recovery of Kassi at the instance of Faqirullah appellant and signed the recovery memo. The case was investigated by Abdul Rashid, P.W.10.
6. At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence appellants were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein they refuted the entire prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. In an answer to a question they also stated that the deceased was done to death at the instance of Noor Ahmed P.W. Who had illicit relations with the wife of the deceased. They further stated that they were falsely involved in the case so that they may not report the matter against said Noor Ahmed P.W. They also produced a defence witness Dais Muhammad who had stated that on the day of incident he was present in the village mosque for Iftari and Noor Ahmed P.W. Was also with him where they heard about the murder of Siraj Din.
' It is contended by learned counsel for appellants that the case against the appellants is highly doubtful. Submits that the motive as put up by the prosecution may not be relied upon because the prosecution has not brought on the file any evidence which could prove the same. Contends that even the Police during investigation did not recover bolts from the house of Faqirullah appellant nor the Pump from the house of Siraj Din deceased. Contends that no reliance on the statement of Noor Ahmed P.W.6 can be placed because according to his own showing his house was at a distance of about one furlong from the Dhari of the deceased and from such a distance it was not possible for him to have witnessed the occurrence. Contends that even otherwise also the witnesses have contradicted each other on material points and have been contradicted by the medical evidence, as far as the number of injuries and the seat of injuries are concerned.
' I have heard learned counsel at length and gone through the evidence with his assistance. The eye-witness account in the case was furnished by Noor Ahmed, Nazir Ahmed and Muhammad Din, P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 respectively. Noor Ahmed P.W. Was real brother of the deceased and Muhammad Din P.W. Was step-brother of the deceased. Nazir Ahmed P.W. Had no relationship. All of them gave a detailed account of the occurrence. According to Noor Ahmed and Muhammad Din P.Ws. They were present at their well when they heard a fireshot and saw both the appellants coming out of their Haveli and going towards the house of the deceased. They also followed them and thereafter they saw the occurrence. Both of them were cross-examined at length. It is strange that during cross-examination the whole endeavour was to show the enmity of Noor Ahmed P.W. With the deceased. It was suggested to him that he had illicit relations with the wife of the deceased, therefore, he had got him murdered. The suggestion was refuted by the witness. In the light of the suggestion given to the witness it becomes clear that he cannot be called an interested witness, therefore, I hold that Noor Ahmed P.W. Is not an inimical witness and because of a mere suggestion from the defence would not make him as such. The contention of learned counsel that there is contradiction between the statement of the witness and the doctor's evidence is also not very material. The witness had stated that the deceased was given an injury on the face with the butt of the gun and with Kassi on the head whereas the blunt weapon injuries were found on the head. I have considered this aspect and find it could not even be called a contradiction. The witness was witnessing the occurrence from some distance and in such circumstances he could not possibly be precise about the scat of injuries. It is correct that exact description can only be given when the occurrence is being witnessed from a close range and the injured is not moving at all. In this case when Siraj Din deceased was being belaboured by the assailants he should have been moving in order to save himself or with the pain of the injuries. The witnesses were cross-examined at length but they were not even suggested any enmity with the appellants or motive for their false involvement. According to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants there was no motive on the part of the appellants to commit the offence; if that he so then there was also no motive on the part of the witnesses to falsely implicate them.
' The defence could not give any reason why they were falsely implicated for the commission of the offence.
' As far as Nazir P.W. Is concerned he is an independent witness who came to the spot after hearing the fire-arm shot, and gave a detailed account of the occurrence. He was cross-examined at length but the defence could not bring any thing on the record to dub him as an interested witness or inimical. The narration as given by him inspires confidence.
For what has been discussed above, I hold that the eye-witnesses were present at the spot and had witnessed the occurrence. Their evidence inspires confidence and can safely he relied upon.
As far as the motive in the instant case is concerned it was furnished by Noor Ahmed P.W. Who was real brother of the deceased. According to him the deceased and Faqir Ullah appellant in partnership had installed a tube-well with the financial assistance of Agricultural Development Bank. After the installation of the tube-well there was constant dispute between them about the running cost of the said tube-well, therefore, Faqir Ullah appellant removed the bolts of the tube- well so that it could not be operated and in retaliation Siraj Din deceased removed the Pump. As I have already held that there was no enmity of Noor Ahmed P.W. With the appellants, therefore, this part of the statement can also safely be relied upon.
' For what has been discussed above, I rely upon the eye-witness account corroborated by the evidence of motive. Therefore the appeal fails which is accordingly dismissed. Khushi Muhammad appellant is on hail, he shall be taken into custody forthwith for serving the remaining portion of his sentence.