' Muhammad Sharif has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 17-12-1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur whereby he was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. And was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default thereof to further undergo R.I. For 2 years. The fine, in case of its realization, was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The appellant was also given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The co-accused namely Muhammad Aslam and Mst. Bibi alias Jannat Bibi were acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt.
2. The facts, necessary for the disposal of this appeal, are that Niamat Ali alias Amanat Ali (P.W.11) made a statement Exh.P.B. At 9 p.m. On 18-5-1986 at General Hospital, Lahore, before Ahmad Ali Sub-Inspector (P.W.12) wherein he had stated that while he was 7 years of age his mother Mst.
Bashiran Bibi has expired. He was brought up by his deceased father Muhammad Ishaq. The appellant Muhammad Sharif and his wife Mst. Razia persuaded his deceased father to contract a second marriage to which he agreed. Accordingly 5/6 months prior to the occurrence his deceased father got married to Mst. Surraya Parveen (P.W.). It was stated that after the marriage the appellant as well as his wife Mst. Razia Bibi leveled allegations of different nature against the complainant's stepmother. They had often picked up quarrel with each other. On the fateful day i,e, 17th of May, 1986 at about 9 p.m. The deceased Ishaq was present in the house of Siddique (P.W.2).
Muhammad Sharif came out of his house raising Lalkara that he would take a revenge. Thereupon he brought Kassi from the house of Mst. Bibi, acquitted co-accused and gave 2/3 blows on the head of the deceased. Muhammad Siddique (P.W.2) tried to rescue but the appellant also inflicted a Kassi blow on his head. Muhammad Aslam, acquitted co-accused came with a Sota and inflicted injury on the left eye of the complainant. In the meantime Muhammad Alam (P.W.3) and the complainant's step-mother Mst. Surraya Parveen (P.W.1) were also attracted to the place of occurrence and they witnessed the occurrence. The appellant alongwith his co-accused Muhammad Aslam succeeded to run away. On the basis of this report Ghulam Sarwar, Moharrir Head Constable (P.W.6) registered the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1 at 1130 p.m. At Police Station Pattoki.
Initially case was registered under section 307/34, P P.C. But on the death of Muhammad Ishaq section 302, P.P.C. Was added vide report dated 21-6-1986. Dr. A.G. Sajid, Medical Officer, Pattoki (P.W.10) medically examined Muhammad Ishaq and found the following injuries on his person:--
(1) Burn 2 x 2 c.m. On the front of the left knee joint.
(2) Abrasion 2 x 1 c.m. On the front of the left knee joint.
(3) Lacerated wound 4 x 5 c.m. x 0.2 c.m. x scalp deep on the left side and top of head, running posteriorly and was 1 c.m. Left to midline.
(4) Lacerated wound 3 c.m. Long curved interrupted at one place 0.5 c.m. x scalp deep on the left side and top of head 3 c.m. In front of wound No,3.
(5) Burn in an area of 10 x 10 c.m. On the back and upper surface of left forearm. Condition was not satisfactory. Blackening on the right eye was present. Patient was semi-conscious. Left pupil was dilated and fixed. Injured did not move his right side of body. Pulse was 100 p.m. B.P. Was 110/60. Skin was cold and clammy. Swelling on the left side of head around wounds Nos. 3 and 4 in an area of 10 x 10 c.m. Was present.
' The medical report of Muhammad Ishaq is Exh.P.E. He was medically examined at 2-20 a.m. On 18- 5-1986. Because of his precarious condition, the P.W. Referred him to General Hospital, Lahore. This doctor also examined Muhammad Siddique (P.W.2) and found the following injuries on his person:- -
(1) Lacerated wound 6 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep on the left side of the forehead. Bone under the wound is depressed below the surface. Bleeding was coming from the mouth and nostrils of the patient.
(2) Bruise 17 x 2 c.m. On the back of left side of chest.
(3) Blackening of the left eye was present. Left pupil was bigger than right and was fixed.
' The doctor also referred him to General Hospital, Lahore. His medical report is Exh.P.C.
' Amanat Ali (P.W.11) was also medically examined and following injury was found on his person:--
(1) Bruise 2 x 2 c.m. On the left side of face just below the left eye.
3. The Investigating Officer Ahmad Ali (P.W.12) visited the spot on 19-5-1986 and took blood-stained earth into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.P.F. The injured died in the Lahore General Hospital at 9-30 p.m. On 20-5-1986 which is evident from a certificate Exh.P.N. Issued on the next day by the Registrar, Lahore General Hospital. The Investigating Officer, after getting the information of his death, reached the hospital. There he prepared injury statement Exh.P.J. And inquest report Exh.P.K.
Of the deceased. The site plans Exh.PA. And PA./1 were prepared by Ciamar-ul-Salam (P.W.5)
Draftsman. The appellant was arrested on 26th of May, 1986 and the Kassi P.5 was recovered at his instance which was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.P.H. After. Investigation of the case the appellant was charged, along with his acquitted co-accused Muhammad Aslam, for the murder of Muhammad Ishaq deceased.
4. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses to establish its case. Dr. Syed Shoaib Shah (P.W.14) conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body on 21-6-1986 at 3 p.m. And found the following injuries:-
(1) There was an inverted V-shaped healed scar mark 7.5 c.m. Long at the middle of head covering both parietal bones. The centre point was 13 c.m. Above the top of nose. The site of the injury was corresponding with injury No,4 of M.L.R. No,S/169/86, dated 18-5-1986 of Civil Hospital, Pattoki.
(2) There was vertical healed scar mark 5 c.m. Long at left side of head on the left parietal bone 2 c.m. Behind injury No,1. The site corresponded with injury No,3 of M.L.R, mentioned.
(3) There was scabbed area with crust at the back of left of upper fore-arm covering 13 x 5 c.m.
Area with granulation underneath the side was corresponding of the M.L.R.
(4) Healed scabbed area 4 x 3 c.m. At the top of left knee cap.
' According to the doctor, the cause of death was brain abscess resulted from injuries Nos. 1 and 2.
Exh.P.M. Is the carbon copy of post-mortem report.
5. The ocular account in this case has been established in its material particulars by Niamat Ali alias Imanat Ali (P.W.11) complainant of this case who is the son of the deceased. He has got no animus whatsoever against the appellant. His testimony is trustworthy and inspires confidence.
The other eyewitnesses namely Mst. Surayya Parveen (P.W.1) wife of the deceased, Muhammad Siddique (P.W.2) real brother of the appellant and Muhammad Alam (P.W.3) and Muhammad Shafi (P.W.4) totally denied the occurrence in the manner stated by the prosecution. It is pertinent to mention here that Surraya P.W.1 and Siddique P.W.2 though turned hostile admitted the place of occurrence. Muhammad Siddique (P.W.2) in whose house this occurrence had taken place, had admitted the occurrence but had stated that while they were smoking Hukka some unknown persons had murdered Muhammad Ishaq deceased. He further stated that he was also injured at the time of occurrence. However, he had stated that the deceased was murdered by some unknown persons. This P.W. Is real brother of the appellant. He admits his injury at the time of the alleged occurrence. All these witnesses who have turned hostile have got their own reasons for doing the same. Mst. Surayya Parveen (P.W.1) had got no sympathy with her newly married deceased husband as is evident from the testimony of Niamat Ali (P.W.11) and Ahmad Ali (P.W.12).
Both of them had stated that Mst. Surayya Parveen (P.W.1) was a lady of doubtful character. The Investigating Officer had stated categorically in his statement that allegations of loese character against his witness had been fully established during the course of investigation. Muhammad Siddique (P.W.2) has got his own reaosn since his real brother Muhammad Sharif appellant has been involved in this case.
6. The recovery of Kassi P.5 from the appellant has been proved by Din Muhammad P.W.13 and Ahmad Ali P.W.12. The former is a completely independent witness. Nothing has come on record to show that this witness has got any relationship with either of the party, nor has got any animus against the appellant. His testimony is unimpeachable and inspires confidence. According to the Chemical Examiner's report Exh.P.Q., the Kassi P.5 and the earth recovered from spot were stained with human blood.
7. The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Stated that he had been implicated falsely because he arranged marriage of the deceased against the wishes of the complainant Niamat All P.W.11.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that all the witnesses except Niamat Ali P.W.11 have not supported the prosecution version and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed a grave error in returning verdict of guilty on the sole testimony of the complainant. He has further argued that the complainant is an interested witness and has involved the present appellant in a mala fide manner out of enmity. He has also argued that the investigation in this case has been conducted in a mala fide manner as according to him the alleged F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1 is said to have been recorded on 18-5-1986 while according to Niamat Ali (P.W.11) the police came to the General Hospital, Lahore on 19-5-1986. This factum, according to the learned counsel, has further been supported by the death certificate Exh.P.N. Wherein the date of admission of the deceased has been mentioned as 19-5-1986.
9. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and have perused the record. The time and place of the occurrence of this incident have even been admitted by Mst. Surayya Parveen (P.W.1) and Muhammad Siddique (P.W.2) both of whom had turned hostile. Muhammad Siddique (P.W.2) stated that Ishaq deceased was sitting alongwith him in his house and they were busy in smoking Hukka when some unknown persons entered the house and murdered Muhammad Ishaq.
He admitted that he also sustained injuries on his person in this occurrence. This shows that the time and place of occurrence have been fully established on the record by the prosecution.
Argument of the learned counsel that in the circumstances of this case when the other eye- witnesses have turned hostile, the appellant cannot be convicted upon the sole testimony of an interested witness, is devoid of force. The ocular account has been established in all its material particulars by Niamat Ali (P.W.11) who himself was injured in this incident. Regarding his injury Dr. A.G. Sajid (P.W.10) has specifically stated that the same could not have been caused by friendly hand. This fact goes a long way in establishing the presence of this witness at the spot. He has got no animus whatsoever against the appellant. The witness has satisfactorily described the manner of injuries inflicted by the appellant on his deceased father. The fact that the deceased had two burn injuries on his person which have not been explained by the prosecution would not prejudice its case in any manner. It is pertinent to mention here that Muhammad Siddique (P.W.2) though turned hostile, had admitted in his testimony that they were smoking Hukka at the time of occurrence. This accordingly would be a reasonable explanation of the cause of these burns on the deceased. Even otherwise non-explanation of some injuries, on the person of deceased, would not affect the prosecution case, if the evidence otherwise inspires confidence. The arguments that the appellant cannot be convicted on the testimony of sole witness is fully negated by the quality of evidence brought on record in this case. It has been held in numerous cases that the conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness provided the Court is otherwise satisfied respecting its reliability. It is the quality of the E evidence and not the quantity which the Courts are required to see. Simply on the ground that since the other witnesses have turned hostile, the testimony of this star witness cannot be discarded. As already discussed in the preceding paragraph that the witnesses who turned hostile, had got their own axe to grind. Everyone of them had a solid reason for turning hostile. As already mentioned Siddique (P.W.2) had even admitted the injuries on his person in this occurrence but simply to absolve the appellant, his real brother, he suppressed the truth. It would be atraversity of justice to give any importance to their testimony in the presence of unimpeachable account given by Niamat Ali (P.W.11). I am fully satisfied that the ocular account in this case has been established beyond any doubt.
10. The argument of the learned counsel that the investigation of this case had been conducted in a mala fide manner on the ground that F.I.R. Was alleged to have been recorded on 18th of May, 1986 while Niamat Ali (P.W.11) had stated that police came to the hospital on 19-5-1986 has got no force. Niamat Ali (P.W.11) had categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that he made his statement Exh.P.B. Before the police on 18-5-1986. He had further stated that he took his deceased father first to Pattoki Hospital from where the doctor referred him to Lahore General Hospital. The medical reports Exh.P.C., Exh.P.D. And Exh.P.E. Respectively of Muhammad Siddique (P.W.2), Niamat Ali (P.W.11) and Ishaque deceased clearly established the fact that they were medically examined at Civil Hospital, Pattoki by Dr. GA. Sajid (P.W.10) at 2-20 a.m. On 18-5-1986 who also referred them to the General Hospital, Lahore. The factum of reference, as already stated, has been corroborated by the testimony of Niamat Ali (P.W.11) wherein he had stated that he reached the General Hospital, Lahore at 6-30 a.m. In the morning. The Investigating Officer has categorically stated that he visited the hospital on 18th of May, 1986. Though in the death certificate Exh.P.N. It is mentioned that the deceased was admitted on 19th of May, 1986 but nothing much would turn upon this when it is fully established on record that the F.I.R. Was recorded on 18th of May, 1986. The medical evidence is in full accord with the ocular account. Niamat Ali (P.W.11) had stated that the appellant inflicted injuries on the head of his deceased father which factum has been fully corroborated by the medical report Exh.P.E. And the post-mortem report Exh.P.M. Of the deceased. As far as the burn injuries on the deceased are concerned, they stand fully explained through the testimony of Muhammad Siddique P.W.2 who had stated that at the time of occurrence he was smoking Hukka alongwith the deceased. These injuries could have caused by the fire of Hukka. This being the position it cannot be said that the medical evidence contradicts the ocular account.
Keeping the ocular account, the medical evidence and the recovery of the H incriminating article into consideration, I am of the view that the prosecution has established its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt. Accordingly, his appeal is dismissed.