' SH. MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR, J.--- Muhammad Afsar was tried under section 302, P.P.C. For the murder of Imdad Hussain by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal, who vide his judgment, dated 29-3-1989, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to death plus fine of Rs,10,000. The fine if paid was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo R.I. For two yeaRs, Mst. Begum NQor co- accused of Muhammad Afsar, who was tried under section 302/109, P.P.C. For abetment of the aforesaid murder was, however, acquitted of the charge by the same judgment.
' The convict has filed the present appeal, viz. Criminal Appeal No,45 of 1989, whereas the learned Additional Sessions Judge has referred the case to this Court under section 374, Cr.P.C. For confirmation of the death sentence vide Murder Reference No,131 of 1989. Khan Bahadur (P.W.7), father of Imdad Hussain deceased has filed Criminal Revision No,63 of 1989, against the acquittal of Mst. Begum Noor. We propose to dispose of the three matters by this judgment.
2. The occurrence took place on 16-6-1986 at Peshiwela and F.I.R. Exh.P.F. Was recorded by Muhammad Asghar S.I. (P.W.11), the same day at 8-15 p.m. On the statement of Muhammad Hussain (P.W.8).
' The motive for the occurrence is stated to be that Khan Bahadur (P.W.7) had betrothed his son Imdad Hussain deceased with Mst. Begum Noor (since acquitted) daughter of Muhammad Nawaz.
Khan Bahadur P.W. Was now going to marry his deceased son, but Mst. Begum Noor refused to marry the deceased saying that she would marry with Muhammad Afsar appellant. It is alleged that the appellant had murdered Imdad Hussain at the behest of Mst. Begum Noor.
3. As for the main occurrence, it is stated by Muhammad Hussain complainant (P.W.8) that on the fateful day at about Peshiwela, he (the complainant), Ata Muhammad (not produced) and Noor Muhammad (P.W.9), resident of Khokhar Bala were on their way to Chashma Hadianwala, for watering their cattle. Imdad Hussain deceased was already watering his cattle at the said Chashma. When he was free after watering his cattle, then the appellant armed with a hatchet appeared at the scene from the eastern side. He raised Lalkara that he would teach him a lesson for marrying Mst. Begum Noor. Simultaneously he gave a hatchet blow which landed on the head of the deceased, who fell down. In the fallen condition, the appellant caused more injuries with hatchet, one after the other on the head and neck of the deceased. The occurrence is stated to be witnessed by Ata Muhammad (not produced) and Noor Muhammad (P.W.9). The appellant decamped from the spot towards Dharvala Kahoon with the weapon of offence while raising Lalkara and the deceased died at the spot.
4. The investigation in this case was conducted by Muhammad Asghar S.I. (P.W.11), who after recording the F.I.R., proceeded to the spot. He found the dead body of the deceased lying on the site of the pond. He prepared the inquest report Exh.P.H. And sent the dead body for post-mortem examination through Ghulam Haider F.C. (P.W.2). He sent Muhammad Malik (not produced) and Khan' Bahadur (P.W.7) for identification of the dead body at the mortuary. Since it was too late, the Si. Deputed Muhammad Sharif F.C. And Sher Muhammad Chowkidar to guard the spot and himself proceeded to village Dharyala Kahoon to arrest the appellant. On 17-6-1986, he again inspected the spot and collected blood-stained earth vide memo. Exh.P.I. Ghulam Haider F.C. (P.W.2) produced the last worn clothes of the deceased before the S.I., which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.C. He recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C.
' On 27-6-1986, Altaf Hussain Shah and Feroze All Councillors produced the appellant before the Police Officer, who arrested him. The same day, Mst. Begum Noor was also produced before the investigator by them.
' On 4-7-1986, the appellant while in police custody got recovered hatchet P.4 from his residential house in the presence of All Bahadur Councilor (P.W.6) and Muhammad Zaman (not produced), which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.F. On 13-7-1986, Zafar All Patwari (P.W.6) handed over to the Investigating Officer, site plan Exh.PA. And its copies Exhs.PA./1 and PA./2.
' After usual investigation, Muhammad Asghar S.I. Submitted the challan in the Court.
5. Dr. Asghar Hameed Qureshi (P.W.10), S.M.O. Civil Hospital, Chakwal, conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Imdad Hussain and found four incised wounds, one oblique incised wound, three parallel superficial incised wounds, in an area of 6-1/2" x 3/4", on the upper part of neck, a lacerated wound and an abrasion thereon.
' Death in the opinion of the doctor was due to intra and extra cranial bleeding and injury to the brain caused by injuries Nos.1, 2 and 6 (reproduced below), which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature individually as well as collectively:-
(1) An incised wound 4-1/2" x 1" x brain deep, oblique over right temporal area and zygomatic area, close and in front of right ear pinna. A part of this pinna was cut.
(2) An oblique incised wound, 3-1/8" x 1/2", brain deep, on the back of the scalp, 3/4" above and to the right of occiput.
(6) An incised wound, 4" x 5/8" into brain deep, on top of the scalp, 1/2" to the left of midline situated antero posteriorly. The fracture line went into the frontal bone anteriorly.
6. The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution allegations. He disowned the recovery of hatchet P.4 and made the following statement in answer to question No,2 'Why this case against you and why the witnesses have deposed against you':-- "The present case has been falsely registered against me at the instance of Muhammad Hussain and Khan Bahadur at the behest of Muhammad Khan P.W. All the eye-witnesses are either co- related, related with the deceased and complainant or from the village of the complainant Muhammad Hussain. Muhammad Hussain P.W. Had doubted my illicit relations with his wife, because about 2/3 months prior to the occurrence, once the- wife of Muhammad Hussain and myself both were working in the adjacent fields when he came there and asked me why I was sitting near the field where his wife was working. Muhammad Khan Lambardar has also previous enmity with me. In fact, I was not present in the area of Tehsil and District Chakwal on the day of occurrence at the alleged time of occurrence. Muhammad Hussain P.W. Had also warned me of dire consequences."
' The appellant declined to make statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And produced Abdul Rehman Electrician, Shamas Textile Mills, Chiniot, as D.W.1 in his defence. The said witness deposed that according to the attendance register of the Mill, the appellant remained in the Mill on 16-6- 1986, the day of occurrence. In cross-examination he admitted that the attendance register always remained with the Head Clerk.
7. The learned trial Judge believing the prosecution evidence vide impugned judgment, convicted the appellant under section 302, P.P.C. And gave him the sentence as indicated above, but acquitted Mst. Begum Noor of the charge of abetment.
8. The learned defence counsel contended that it was an unwitnessed crime, which took place when none was present at the scene of occurrence, the witnesses being the close relations of the deceased are making false statements against the appellant on account of their blood relations; the ocular version is against the medical evidence; the belated F.I.R. Was recorded after preliminary investigation; hence no reliance can be placed on this dubious document; the police did not conduct the investigation in this ase honestly and impartially, which has greatly prejudiced the case of the defence; the motive, though alleged, has not been proved, by the prosecution; the recovery of blood-stained hatchet P.4 was not proved through independent evidence; the defence evidence has not been properly appreciated, hence the appeal be accepted and conviction and sentence be set aside.
9. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that there is no background of enmity between the parties; hence the eye-witnesses had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant in this case. The learned counsel for the complainant urged that the acquittal of Mst. Begum Noor has resulted into miscarriage of justice, so by accepting the revision petition, the case be remanded for fresh trial in accordance with law.
10. We have critically examined the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case minutely with their assistance.
' We find no force in the submission of the learned defence counsel that the F.I.R. Was lodged after inordinate delay and preliminary investigation.
' Keeping in view the terrain and topography of the place of occurrence, we find that there is hilly area on all the four sides of the place of occurrence, and the said place was not connected with any metalled road at the time of occurrence. The complainant went on foot to lodge the F.I.R. To the police station, thus I there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. Even Muhammad Asghar S.I. (P.W.11), the investigator stated:-- 'From Kher Pur to Khokhar Bala there was no metalled road in those days and it was three miles or two miles distance'. The F.I.R. Was recorded at the police station which completely eliminates the possibility of preliminary investigation. Mere statement of the complainant, which was made under some misunderstanding does not prove that F.I.R. Was recorded after preliminary investigation. The contention of the learned defence counsel, that motive though alleged, yet not proved is also devoid of force, because marriage of Mst. Begum Noor with Maula Bakhsh after her bail in this case, does not by itself is sufficient to discard the motive. Motive is a state of mind of the accused, there is ample evidence on the record to show that the appellant was interested in Mst. Begum Noor. Mere relationship of the eyewitnesses with the deceased, in the absence of any enmity is not sufficient to discard their straightforward and confidence inspiring evidence. In the present case, neither any enmity was suggested to the eye- witnesses nor it was denied, which proves beyond any doubt that these witnesses had no reason to falsely implicate the appellant in this case. The close scrutiny of the medical evidence shows that it in fact corroborates the ocular version, because the occurrence took place in the month of June, which is normally the hotest month of the year. Dr. Asghar Hameed Qureshi P.W.10 deposed Gases emerge about 24 hours after the death but in hot season they may arise earlier. The medical evidence with regard to the condition of the dead body is based upon some guesswork, which depends upon many variable factors, such as, whether it is a body of fat man or a thin person and also whether he died in the cold season or in the hot weather and also what type of injuries he received before his death. It would be against the settled principle of safe administration of criminal justice, if independent ocular evidence is discarded on the basis of medical evidence, which is merely based on guesswo rk of the doctor.
' The minor discrepancies appearing in the evidence of the eyewitnesses here and there per se are not sufficient to disbelieve the ocular evidence, especially when their presence at the scene of occurrence is proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Furthermore, such like discrepancies are likely to creep in the evidence of truthful witnesses after the lapse of sufficient time. The occurrence took place on the spring, where people used to bring their cattle for watering, the eye-witnesses being the residents of the locality, are the natural and probable witnesses of the occurrence; hence there is no force in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly.
' We have given our anxious consideration to this aspect of the case, what should be the proper sentence in this case. We find no mitigating circumstances in favour of the appellant, so he richly deserved the death sentence, which is the normal penalty prescribed under the law; so while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under section 302, P.P.C., we confirm his death sentence. The sentence of fine, as imposed by the trial Court, is also maintained.
' We find no force in the revision petition, hence the same is dismissed in limine.