ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.--This order would dispose of two petitions; one filed by Fazal Hussain complainant for the enhancement of compensation and the other by the convict Suleman against his conviction.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 1-9-1985 Fazal Hussain complainant (P.W. 8) left his house at 8.45 a.m. At about 12 noon he rang up at his house but there was no reply. At 2.30 p.m. He reached his house and found his children sitting in the verandah of the house and was told that their mother was not at the house. He found. His wife lying in the kitchen in blood bath. Dr. Naila straightened the body of the deceased and it was stated that she had injuries on her head and near the left eye. An iron bar as also lying near the dead body. A report was lodged with the police. The petitioner who was working as servant of the complainant was not available at the house. After usual investigation, the case was sent up for trial. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as follows:--
(a) Under section 302, P.P.C. Death sentence and a fine of Rs. 10,000 or in default to suffer two years, R.I.
(b) Under section 404, P.P.C. Four years' R.I. And fine of Rs. 10,000 or in default six months' R.I.
(c) Under section 411, P.P.C. Two years' R.I. He was further ordered to pay Rs.10,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of Mst. Fatima Fazal or in default to undergo six months' R.I.
3. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and the revision for enhancement of compensation were dismissed by the High Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner conceded at the outset that he is not in a position to challenge the conviction recorded against the petitioner as there is sufficient material to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. In spite of this concession, we have examined the record and find that there is no force in this petition. The conviction of the accused is based on the following pieces of evidence:--
(i) Judicial confession.
(ii) Recovery of stolen goods from the house of the accused.
(iii) The wrong name given by the accused.
(iv) Recovery of weapon of offence from the place of occurrence; and
(v) The evidence of last seen.
5. These pieces of evidence, have been accepted by the trial Court and the High Court. The judicial confession (Ex.PJ/6) was recorded by P.W. 7 Arif Nadeem, Magistrate First Class, after completing all the legal requirements. In this confession, the accused has stated that he caused the death of the deceased by means of an iron bar and then took away the household articles. Although the accused has retracted from the judicial confession but it has been established through the evidence of the Magistrate and it was properly relied upon by the Courts.
6. The next piece of evidence is the recovery of stolen goods from the house of the accused. On the pointation of the accused, the police recovered 11 gold bangles, a gold ring, handkerchief, a V.C.P., two pairs of shirt and shalwar, two bed-sheets, three cloth pieces, three saris, female shirts, dopattas, a sweater, and a hand bag. These articles were identified by the complainant, P.W. 8.
7. The third piece of evidence is with regard to his name which was wrongly given by the accused.
He had given his name as `Javed' at the time of employment. The deceased's husband, recorded this fact in his diary. Two pages containing the particulars of the accused had been removed by the accused from this diary. The blood-stained iron bar was recovered from the place of wardat (4th piece of evidence).
8. The fifth piece of evidence is with regard to `last seen' which was also properly relied upon by the Courts.
9. All these pieces of evidence connect the accused with the commission of the offence. He had absconded after the incident which is another circumstance against him.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that in view of the young age of the petitioner, lesser punishment be awarded. There is no mitigating circumstance in favour of the accused. The accused in his confession has given his age as 15 years. In his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C. He has again mentioned his age as 15 years. In his statement recorded on oath, he has given his age 14/15 years. He was cross-examined by the prosecution but he denied its suggestion that he was aged 20 years. At the close of his statement he produced Ex.DG birth register showing his date of birth as 14-9-1970. This entry was recorded on 17-3-1986 therefore this document was rightly discarded by the Courts. This was an afterthought plea as the entry recorded in the document was recorded after the commission of the offence. Therefore, this document has no evidentiary value. The learned counsel has also referred to the petition of the petitioner sent through the Superintendent, Borstal Jail, Bahawalpur. He submitted that this would also show that the petitioner was minor at the time of commission of the offence. There is no proof of minority. After recording his judicial confession he was sent to the judicial lock-up from where he was brought to the Court for trial. This contention was not raised before the trial Court and the High Court. In the absence of any material no reliance can be placed on the statement of the accused.
The mere fact that the accused is a young offender is no ground for not awarding him normal penalty. In the present case, mens rea of the accused can be seen from the fact that from the very beginning he disclosed his wrong name. He misrepre4ented about his real name at the time of joining service of the complainant. He had stolen a klashnikove which he kept with him. This was also recovered from his house on his pointation. The accused had given severe blows to the deceased with the iron bar and then removed the bangles of the deceased from her person. The accused had joined the service of the complainant with the intention to deprive him of his valuable property and in the process he also took the life of his wife. All these facts would clearly show that the accused was of mature understanding. He had not committed the offence under the influence of any other person. He betrayed the trust reposed in him therefore there was no mitigating circumstance. In Hassan v. Bashir Ahmad (PLD 1966 (W. P.) Pesh. 97), it has been observed that "mere youth of accused by itself is not sufficient reason for not inflicting the normal penalty of death. There is no force in this petition and the same is dismissed.
11. In view of the above order in Jail Petition No.97-R of 1989, the learned counsel for Fazal Hussain, petitioner complainant, does not press Criminal Petition No. Cr.P. 174-R/89.
Both the petitions are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.