' ABDUR RAHMAN KHAN, J.--- This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,35 of 1988 filed by Mulazim Hussain Shah against his conviction under section 302, P.P.C. For imprisonment for life and Revision No, 32 of 1988 brought by complainant Humayun Khan for enhancement of the sentence of the appellant to that of death and for increase in the fine. The convict-appellant was found guilty of the murder of Safdar Khan deceased and through order, dated 10-10-1988 impeached in the said two matters he was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. By the learned Sessions Judge, Abbottabad and was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs,20,000 or in default to suffer further three years' R.I. And it was also ordered that half of the fine if recovered should be paid to the heirs of the deceased and his period spent as undertrial prisoner was ordered to be counted towards imprisonment.
2. In his report on the spot at 14-20 the first informant Humayun Khan inculpated the appellant for the murder of his first cousin Safdar Khan on the allegations that he was busy in his work near his shop, when in the meantime his first cousin after crossing the road came to his shop. Mulazim Hussain Shah, the appellant came there with a dagger in his hand and after inflicting injuries on Safdar Khan ran away. Many persons gathered on the spot. Safdar expired there and then.
Accused while running from the spot was arrested by the police. Arif Khan and Arshad Jamil were shown as eye-witnesses. Motive for the crime was attributed to the elopement of Mst. Abida, the sister of the accused, after the deceased.
3. Police party headed by A.S.I. Sarbaland Khan happened to be on patrol duty near the spot and noticing the accused running with Chhuri arrested him nearby.
4. In order to appreciate the factual aspect of the case it will be pertinent to give an abstract of the relevant evidence examined by the prosecution. Medical Officer Dr. Jumma Khan appeared as P.W.1 and stated that he had performed the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased at 3- 15 on 14-3-1987 and on external examination detected the following injuries:--
(1) Stab wound 1-1/2" x 1/2" cavity deep on the left side front of the chest 1/2" above the left nipple and 6" from the midline.
(2) Three stab wounds each 1/2" x 1/2" x cavity deep on the left lateral chest wall in mid axllary line over an area 3" x 2" and vertically 3" below the armpit.
(3) Two incised wounds 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/2" and 1/2" x 1/4" on the left side in front of the chest over an area of 3" x 1/2" over the last castal margin and horizontally 3" from midline.
(4) Stab wound 2" x 1/4" cavity deep on the left side back on the chest 4" below the inferial angle of the left shoulder blade.
(5) Incised wound 3" x 1/2" x cavity deep placed just below inferial angle of the left shoulder blade.
(6) Incised wound 1" x 1/4" x skin deep on the medial side left upper arm 4" below the shoulder joint."
' P.W.2 is identifier of the dead body. S.H.O. Muhammad Nazir appeared as P.W.3 and deposed that he incorporated the Murasila into F.I.R. Exh.PA./1. He also took into possession the blood-stained clothes etc. Of the deceased brought from the doctor after post-mortem examination. Out of these, shirt, jacket, Bunyan, vest coat had cut marks over them. This witness also took four letters produced before him into possession which were allegedly written by Mst. Abida to the deceased.
All these articles were packed, sealed and sent for the opinion of the chemical examiner.
Statements of the P.Ws. Were also recorded by him and challan was also submitted on completion of the investigation. P.W. Parvez F.C. Was the member of the Gusht Party headed by Sarbaland Khan A.S.I. According to him they were at a distance of 20 paces from the spot when they heard a brawl from the spot, they rushed there, found the deceased lying on the spot, the accused running from there with Chhuri, they followed him and arrested him at a distance of 30/35 paces from the spot who had a blood smeared Chhuri with him at that time. He witnessed the recovery memos.
Exh.P.W.4/1 and Exh.P.W.4/2, through the former blood-stained Chhuri while by the later blood- stained earth was taken into possession. The informant Humayun was examined as P.W.5 who stated that the deceased was his first cousin; that he runs a motor mechanic shop and that at the time of incident he was busy in his work in the shop. He noticed Safdar Khan deceased crossing the road towards his shop who was stabbed with Chhuri by Mulazim Hussain Shah who fell down on the spot and expired. The accused was chased by Sarbaland Khan A.S.I. And his patrol party and was arrested alongwith Chhuri at some distance. Arif Khan and Arshad Jamil were shown present at the spot alongwith many others. His report was recorded by Sarbaland Khan A.S.I. On the spot.
The moving cause for the murder was described the elopement of the sister of the accused after the deceased..However, the deceased did not want to keep her in his house but on her refusal to go back to the house of her parents she was admitted in `Darul Aman'. P.W.6 Arif Khan is another eye- witness of the occurrence and according to his statement he, Arshad Jamil and the deceased were present in the premises of workshop and before the occurrence the deceased was on his way to cross the road, when he heard alarm and saw Mulazim Hussain Shah giving Chhuri blows to the deceased. An A.S.I. Alongwith police party chased the accused and apprehended him at a distance of 110 paces from the spot. He witnessed the recovery memos. Exh.P.W.4/1 and Exh.P.W.4/2.
According to the former the took into possession the Chhuri taken the accused and through the later blood-stained earth was picked up from the spot. P.W.8 is Muhammad Rafique who also posed to be an eye-witness and according to his statement he was present in his hotel when heard alarm from outside and came out. He saw a young man, lying on the spot and another man running from there. The man who was running from the spot was arrested by the police. Gulzeb another eye-witness appeared as P.W.9 and stated that his shop was at a distance of 10 to 15 paces from the spot, that at the relevant time he was sitting in front of his shop; that he saw the accused causing blows to the deceased with Chhuri and Mulazim Hussain Shah accused was then arrested by the A.S.I. P.W.10 Sarbaland Khan A.S.I. Has partially investigated the case. According to his statement he alongwith F.Cs. Parvez and Yaqoob were on patrol duty in Bazar and when they were in the proximity of the scene of occurrence he saw accused injuring the deceased with Chhuri. He and the Foot Constables chased the accused and arrested him at some distance. He .Then recorded the report of Flumayun Khan and sent it for registration of the case. The accused was also sent to the police station. The injury sheet, inquest report and site plan was prepared by him. Blood-stained Chhuri was also taken into possession from the accused and blood-stained earth was picked up from the spot and all these memos. Were sealed. He then recorded the statements of the P.Ws. And then the investigation was taken in hand by the S.H.O.
5. The accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Completely denied the charge against him and explained his arrest as under:-- "On the day of occurrence I was present in Imam Bargah' belonging to Shia Muslims in connection with celebration of Ume-Ali. The police party alongwith Humayun Khan and Arif Khan came there in search of some accused and when could not find any one they apprehended me from inside the Imam Bargah' and took me to the police station. I am innocent and I have falsely been charged for the murder of the deceased."
' The accused while appearing as his own witness in disproof of the charge under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Almost made the same statement as the one under section 342, Cr.P.C. Reproduced above.
6. The learned counsel arguing the cause of the appellant referred to certain documents exhibited as Exh.D.2 to Exh.D.4 and on the basis of these documents submitted that the deceased had other enemies and, therefore, it was difficult to ascertain as to who in fact is responsible for his murder.
Exh.D.2 is the certified copy of F.I.R. Lodged by Mst. Azra Bibi against the accused under section 506/354, P.P.C. For allegedly outraging her modesty and intimidating her, Exh.D.3 is the certified copy of the bail application filed by the accused in that case and Exh.D.4 is the certified copy of the order sheet in that case showing absence of the deceased from the Court on account of his murder. This argument firstly, beside being suppositional is also entirely unreasonable in that it is not logical to say that the complainant would have spared the real culprit and would have substituted the appellant in his place and secondly, the bail order in that case indicates that bail was allowed to the accused in that case because of the compromise between him (now the deceased of this case) and the complainant side. The learned counsel then condemned the evidence of Arif Khan P.W.6 as unreliable as he denied the registration of a case against himself for his alleged obscene act under section 294/34, P.P.C. This is not a correct proposition to discard the statement of a witness in its entirety because of his single misstatement as under the prevailing system of dispensation of justice in criminal cases grain is to be sifted from chaff and that portion of the statement is to be believed which finds corroboration from the other evidence on record. The learned counsel then pointed to certain discrepancies in the statements of the P.Ws. And argued that these have rendered the veracity of these statements as doubtful. In this context he pointed out that P.W.4 Parvez, P.W.8 Muhammad Rafique and P.W.9 Gulzeb have said that after arrest the accused was taken to the police station whereas P.Ws. 5, 6 and 10 have said that after arrest he was brought to the spot. He also pointed out that P.Ws. 5, 6 and 10 stated that the police came to the spot from the direction of the police station whereas P.Ws. 4, 8 and 9 have said that the police arrived to the spot from the side of Havelian Bus Stand. He also referred to the difference about the description of the dagger as some have described it as double-edged while some have shown it as single-edged. Similarly, some other insignificant differences in the statements were also referred. However, these are very inconsequential and the defence cannot avail of it to the extent to make the prosecution case as doubtable because nothing material turns on the so-called discrepancies. The learned counsel then dubbed the prosecution case as incredible as according to him undue delay has occurred in reporting the incident and while elaborating this point he submitted that the incident allegedly occurred at 13-50 while the report was made at 14-20 at the spot. This argument will hold no good as there is practically no delay because of the chase of the accused by the police, his arrest, disarming him of his Chhuri and bringing him to the spot must have taken some time and considering these factors in background of the tense situation as prevails in such circumstances, the half an hour time consumed in all these matters would not amount to delay. Moreover, in the peculiar circumstances when the accused was arrested with Chhuri while running from the spot the delay if any would not render the prosecution case as disputable. Lastly, it was argued that even if the accused is found guilty he would be liable to punishment under section 304, P.P.C. As it is on record that the deceased had provoked the appellant by exhibiting the letters of his sister when he stood charged for her abduction. However, it is apparent on record that the defence has not conducted the case on this point. Moreover, there is neither any material in support of this arguments nor any basis has been laid to build the defence view point on this count.
7. There is sufficient evidence on record to prove the involvement of the appellant in the crime.
P.W.5 Humayun and P.W.6 Arif Khan are natural witnesses as their shop is close to the place of occurrence. Although they are first cousin of the deceased but they had nothing of their own to implicate the appellant in the case. It is inherent value of the evidence which is to be seen and not the relation, if the evidence of a partisan witness appears to be truthful and finds support from the other circumstances on record, then it cannot be discarded merely on the ground of relationship.
On the other hand, it will not be safe to place reliance on the testimony of a witness who outwardly seems to be entirely independent but whose deposition intrinsically lacks an accuracy and veracity and is also falsified by other reliable circumstances on record. The evidence of the said two witnesses is supported by the arrest of the accused with the dagger in a place bordering their shop. The authenticity of the testimony of Sarbaland Khan P.W.10, Foot Constable Parveez P.W.4 who happened to be present in the vicinity of the scene of crime and who arrested the accused alongwith the weapon of offence can no way be doubted and they had neither any consideration of their own in the matter to accuse the appellant nor their evidence has been weakened in any manner in the cross-examination. It is correct that P.W.8 Muhammad Rafique and P.W.9 Gulzeb have made obliging statements and at that time had tried to please both the sides but however, they had admitted the main incident in front of their shop and the arrest of the accused with the crime weapon from a place near the spot, therefore, nothing material will come out from their concession in favour of the defence.
8. The prosecution has thus established its case beyond doubt and the learned trial Judge correctly found the appellant guilty of the offence, therefore, his appeal is without merit and in view of the motive which has been relied and advanced by the prosecution itself the accused has rightly been awarded lesser penalty and there is no justification to enhance his sentence.
9. Consequently, the appeal and revision, both are dismissed.
Appeal and .