' Ejaz Ahmad alias Ejaz Hussain son of Abdur Razzaq, aged 23 years, was sent up for trial by Police Station Piplan, District Mianwali, for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. Sessions Judg, Mianwali vide his judgment, dated 30-6-1988 convicted and sentenced him under section 302, P.P.C. To imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default thereof four years' R.I. It was further directed that the fine, if recovered, one-half of it shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation. The convict has appealed. Complainant Khalil-ur-Rehman has also filed a revision seeking enhancement of sentence of Ejaz Ahmad. Both the matters will be disposed of by this judgment.
2. Prosecution story in brief, as disclosed in F.I.R. Exh.P.H. Was that first informant Khalil- ur-Rehman after retirement from Postal Department had opened a shop by the name and style of Thal Tent House, near Harnoli Bus-stand. Muhammad Gulzar Ahmad, a nephew of the first informant, was his partner as well. On 16-6-1987 at about 2 p.m., said Muhammad Gulzar Ahmad was lying on a cot in the Verandha of his shop when the first informant was drinking water in a nearby hotel. In the meanwhile, Ejaz Ahmad came armed with a .12 bore pistol. He raised a Lalkara and fired hitting Muhammad Gulzar on his chest, who fell on the cot and died. The accused after committing the offence ran away. Motive for the occurrence was that Muhammad Gulzar wanted hand of Mst.
Rukhsana, sister of the accused, in marriage for him. Ejaz and his parents were not prepared for the marriage and they settled her marriage with somebody else at Sargodha. Ejaz Ahmad thought that the deceased was defaming his sister, therefore, the occurrence.
' F.I.R. Exh.P.H. Was lodged by Khalil-ur-Rehman, P.W.8, on 16-6-1987 at 2-45 p.m. It was recorded by Faiz Muhammad, S.I., P.W.9. The case was with regard to an occurrence which took place the same day at 2 p.m. In the shop of the deceased situated at Harnoli Bus-stop, 16 miles from Police Station Piplan, District Mianwali.
' Faiz Muhammad, S.I., P.W.9, after registering the case went to the spot. He prepared injury statement Exh.P.J. And inquest report Exh.P.K. Of the deceased and then sent the dead body to the mortuary for autopsy. He secured blood-stained earth vide memo. Exh.P.D. An empty cartridge P.6 lying nearby was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.E. He got the said memos. Attested from the witnesses. He arrested the accused on 24-6-1987. At that time he was armed with pistol P.4 alongwith three live cartridges P3/1-3 which were secured vide memo. Exh.P.C. He got site plan Exhs.P.B. And P.B./1 prepared from the Draftsman and gave his notes in red ink thereunder. After usual investigation, he challaned the accused.
' P.W.6 Dr. Muhammad Mumtaz Khan, Medical Officer, D.H.Q. Hospital, Mianwali, on 17-6-1987 at 7 a.m., conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Gulzar Ahmad and found the following injuries:--
(1) A wound of entry of projectile 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. With blackening and charring around the wound over the front of right chest 2 c.m. Below the right nipple and 8 c.m. On the mid-line.
(2) An exit wound 1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. Over the back of right chest at the level of the entry wound.
' In his opinion, death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage caused by injury No,1 which was ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
2. Prosecution in support of its case produced nine witnesses in all. P.W.1 Eid Muhammad, F.C. Had escorted the dead body to the mortuary. P.W.2 Ejaz Ahmad, H.C. Was Moharrir at Police Station Piplan. On 16-6-1987, he received two sealed parcels containing blood-stained earth and crime empty. On 21-6-1987 he sent the said parcels to the respective offices through a constable. On 24- 6-1987, he again received a sealed parcel containing pistol. He sent the said pistol to the concerned office on 4-7-1987. P.W.3 Mirza Zahirud-Din Babar on the directions of the police and pointation of the witnesses prepared site plan Exh.P.B. And Exh.P.B./1. P.W.4 Atlas Khan, F.C. On 21-6- 1987 took two scaled parcels and delivered them on the following day in the Chemical Examiner's office and in the office of the Director Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore. On 4-7-1987, he again received a parcel which he delivered the following day in the concerned office. P.W.5 Hayatullah, H.C. Had witnessed the recovery of pistol P.4 alongwith three live cartridges P.5/1-3 effected at the instance of the appellant at the time of his arrest. The doctor, who had conducted the post- mortem examination appeared as P.W.6. Ocular account was furnished by Abdul Ghani and Khalil- ur-Rehman, P.Ws.7 and 8, respectively. The case was investigated by Faiz Muhammad, Si., P.W.9.
3. At the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined without oath. He refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. He, however, declined to appear on oath in his defence nor he produced any defence evidence.
4. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant was extremely doubtful. Submitted that the medical evidence was in direct conflict with the ocular account because the nature of the injury was such that was not possible in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Submitted that the stomach contents indicated that the occurrence had taken place towards the early hours and not at 2 p.m. As alleged. Stated that the eye-witnesses were interested and inimical, therefore, it was unsafe to rely upon them. The contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State as well as for the complainant. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, it was a cold-blooded murder in which normal penalty of death may be awarded.
5. 1 have heard the learned counsel and gone through the file. Prosecution in order to establish its case has relied upon ocular evidence furnished by Abdul Ghani and Khalil-ur-Rehman, P.Ws.7 and 8, respectively, corroborated by the recoveries and the evidence of motive. As far as the motive in the instant case is concerned, it was alleged by Khalil-ur-Rehman, P.W.8 that the appellant thought that the deceased had disgraced his sister by asking for her hand in marriage. This has been accepted even by the appellant in his statement under section 342, Ci.P.C. Wherein he admitted that the deceased had defamed his sister everywhere. In these circumstances, it is held that the motive, as alleged, is proved.
' One .12 bore empty was secured from the spot by the Investigating Officer on the day of incident. It was taken into possession the same day, and on 21-6-1987 the sealed crime empty was sent to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory. On 24-6-1987 the appellant was arrested and pistol P.4 was secured from his possession. The said pistol was sent to the office of Director, Forensic Science Laboratory on 4-7-1987. The report of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory is that empty P..6, secured from the spot, was fired from pistol P.4, recovered from the appellant, This fact further lends corroboration to the prosecution case.
' Abdul Ghani and Khalil-ur-Rehman, P.Ws., have given a detailed account of the occurrence. They were cross-examined at length but nothing could be brought on record which could suggest that they were not present at the spot and had not witnessed the occurrence. As a matter of fact, in cross-examination it was not even challenged that both the eyewitnesses did not have their places of business at the spot or at the relevant time they were not present there. I have further noticed that none of the witnesses was even suggested any motive or illwill against the appellant for false involvement. The evidence given by both the eye-witnesses inspires confidence and can safely be relied upon. The assertion of the learned counsel for the appellant that the empty cartridge was not mentioned in the inquest report has been considered and it is held that it cannot be fatal to the prosecution case because the Investigating Officer was not even put any question in this regard.
' For what has been discussed above, it is held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt. Therefore, the appeal fails, which is, accordingly, dismissed.
' As far as revision is concerned, it is also dismissed, because prosecution's own case is that the appellant thought that the deceased had defamed his sister. This in itself would be a provocation.
The appellant shall also be given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.