Muhammad Saleem appellant alongwith his brother Muhammad Javaid and their father Muhammad Hussain was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat for an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. For the murder of Muhammad Arshad deceased, the son of Muhammad Ashraf complainant (P.W.7). Vide judgment, dated 30-1-1980, the appellant was convicted under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. With a sentence of 10 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default thereof one year's R.I. He was also ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000 under section 544-13, Cr.P.C., otherwise to undergo one year's R.I. The two co-accused were acquitted.
2. The convict has appealed. Muhammad Ashraf complainant has filed revision petition for the enhancement of the sentence of the appellant and for recording conviction against the acquitted accused. The appeal and the revision petition are being disposed of by this single judgment.
3. The occurrence took place at 6-30 p.m. At Circular Road Gujrat at the shop of the appellant and his co-accused on 9-6-1977. Ashraf complainant made statement (Exh.PA.) to Manzoor Ahmad-S.I.
(P.W.11) the same day at 8-00 p.m. And on its basis formal F.I.R. (Exh.P.A./1) was registered by Akber Ali Moharrar Head Constable (P.W.1) at 8-15 p.m.
4. The case in the F.I.R. Was that the complainant and the deceased hired two cycles from the shop of the appellant and his co-accused. He returned at 6-30 p.m. And paid the rent. The appellant demanded the previous dues against the son; Arshad deceased, was told that after verification from Arshad it would be paid. Javaid and Muhammad Hussain were also present at the shop and insisted for the payment of the dues at that very time. This led to cross-talk. The complainant was given kicks and fist blows by the appellant and insulted by the acquitted co-accused. In the meantime Arshad also reached and on seeing him Muhammad Hussain accused raised Lalkara to his sons whereupon the appellant took out the knife from his Dabb and gave a blow in the chest of the deceased followed by a knife blow by Javaid in the abdomen. He fell down. The appellant gave another knife blow in the head. The complainant, when tried to go near, was threatened to keep away. His alarm attracted Nasir Ali, Abdul Majeed (P.Ws. 9 and 10) and Ismail (given up). The accused left. The deceased was taken on a tonga to the hospital but he expired soon.
5. Dr. Solomon F. Elahi (P.W.8) performed autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 10-6-1977 at 7-00 a.m. There were, one spindle-shaped stab wound on the front of left side of chest, a spindle-shaped stab wound on the lower part of front right chest below the nipple and an incised wound on the left side of head. The injuries were by sharp-edged weapon, first one dangerous to life which actually resulted in death.
6. Muhammad Saleem appellant was also found injured by Raja Manzoor Ahmad S.I. The Investigator (P.W.11) and got him medically examined on 10-6-1977. He was having as many as 10 injuries, three incised on the right thumb and fingers and the rest contusions, of simple nature, within a duration of 48 hours.
7. In addition to the investigator and the medical evidence the prosecution produced Muhammad Ashraf, Nasir Ali and Abdul Majeed (P.Ws. 7, 9 and 10) to support the case. Muhammad Ashraf complainant is the real father of the deceased, Nasir Ali if not a relative at least a friend to him and Abdul Majeed is the employee of Isma il, a brother-in-law of the complainant. The place and time of occurrence are not denied. The injuries to Muhammad Saleem have not been explained, Abdul Majeed tried to say that perhaps when the appellant pulled the knife from the body of the deceased he was injured. The appellant himself gave the version that he was working at his cycle- repair-shop where the deceased brought his cycle for repair, Rs.12 were demanded as labour charges, only Rs.5 were paid, on the insistence for the remaining amount the deceased assaulted and injured him and he, to save himself, taking up the knife from the shop lying nearby, had injured the deceased. The learned Additional Sessions Judge appreciated the evidence of the eye- witnesses in depth and concluded that the eye-witness account was not believable unless corroborated, there was no corroboration and in any case there was no explanation for the injuries to the appellant. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the conclusion cannot be called to hypothetical or whimsical.
8. The upshot is that the conviction was correctly recorded against the appellant under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. Inasmuch as only one injury might have disabled the deceased. Hence maintaining the conviction the sentence already undergone (about 2-1/2 years) and a fine of Rs.15,000 or in default thereof three years' R.I. Would meet the ends of justice. The compensation of Rs.5,000 under section 544, Cr.P.C. Or in default thereof six months' S.I. Is also awarded. The fine and the compensation be deposited in the trial Court within one month from today, otherwise the appellant would be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out the sentence. Whole of the fine, if realised, shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased in full as compensation. Consequently the revision petition fails and is dismissed in limine N.H.Q./M-274/L