Muhammad Ishaq (16/17 years) appellant was tried under section 302, P.P.C. For the murder of Muhammad Jamil (deceased), the brother of Muhammad Ashraf complainant (P.W.5) and vide judgment, dated 20-9-1978 convicted under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. By learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore and sentenced 'to 12 years R.I. And a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default thereof one year's R.I. Whole of the fine if realised was ordered to be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation. The convict has appealed.
2. Muhammad Jamil (deceased) and the appellant were both employed at the workshop of Abdul Hamid (P.W.10), They were working there on 6-9--1977 when Muhammad Naseeb (P.W.4) and Kala (given up P.W.) were also present. At about 4/5 p.m. The deceased and the appellant quarrelled, the appellant took up a scraper and gave blows to the deceased. He was taken in injured condition to Mayo Hospital where Naseer Ahmad (P.W.11) reached the same day and at 9-30 a.m. Recorded the statement of Muhammad Sharif (P.W.5) complainant. It was sent to the Police Station where formal F.I.R. Was registered at .9-45 p.m.
3. The case in the F.I.R. Was that to in a previous case under section 307, P.P.C. Against the appellant, for getting him bailed, the deceased had spent Rs.100 which when desired back on the day of occurrence, led to the dispute suddenly and the scraper blows were given.
4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge believed Muhammad Naseeb, Muhammad Sharif, Abdur Rashid and Abdul Hamid (P.Ws. 4, 5, 8 and 10) and Naseer, S.I. (P.W.11), the investigator, coupled with (Exh.P.L.) the (lying declaration of the deceased recorded by the investigator and concluded the charge against the appellant. None has appeared for the appellant though the counsel is a local one and his name duly appears in the cause list. The matter being very old, the record has been gone through with the help of the learned counsel for the State.
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the State and appreciating the record of the case the conviction seems to have been correctly recorded. From the statement of Abdul Hamid (P.W.10) it is more than clear that both the appellant anti the deceased were employed at his workshop. The deceased had taken Rs.100 from him for getting Muhammad Ishaq appellant released on bail. On the day of occurrence he was sitting in the other portion of his workshop, on hearing the alarm reached the spot and found the deceased lying injured and the; appellant present nearby. The appellant was holding a scraper, while Muhammad Naseeh and Kala P.Ws. Were also present. He placed the injured in a Rickshaw and shifted him to Mayo Hospital. Naseer Ahmad. S.I. (P.W.11) has also stated that he reached Mayo Hospital on 6-9-1977, enquired from the doctor if Jamil (the deceased) was fit to make a statement and the reply being in the negative he recorded the statement (Exh.P.D.) of Muhammad Sharif complainant. He arrested the appellant on 7-9-1977 and on that very day he got recovered the blood-stained scraper from the workshop. On 8-9-1977 the investigator made application (Exh.P.K.) to the doctor, enquired if Jamil was fit to make a statement and the reply (Exh.P.K./1) being in the positive, he recorded his statement (Exh. P.L.). In Exh.P.L. The motive part of the story of the main occurrence is detailed. It is to the that the appellant was his neighbour and friend, was invoived in a case under section 307, P.P.C. So he (the deceased) spent Rs.100 for getting him released on bail and when this amount was demanded back he felt offended and even in the morning of the day of occurrence the demand to this regard infuriated him. As to the main occurrence it is stated that the appellant took up the scraper and gave the blows in the presence of Naseeb and Kala P .W , This dying declaration with respect to .The main occurrence is fully supported by Muhammad Naseeb (P.W.4) He was admittedly employed like the appellant and the deceased in the workshop and was a natural witness, There is not much cross-examination to him. His statement is, therefore, to be accepted as correct. Even Rashid (P.W.8) has supported the motive part of the story. In view of this evidence the learned Additional Sessions Judge was correct to conclude the charge against the appellant. Since the affair developed all of a sudden, so the conviction was correctly recorded under section 304-I, P.P.C.
6. The upshot is that the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellant is on bail, be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out the sentence,