1. ' Pervez Ahmed appellant with his brother Khadim Hussain and their father Gulab Khan were sent up by Police Station Lessar Kalan, for trial, for an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal, vide his judgment, dated 14-11-1987, gave benefit of doubt to Khadim Hussain and Gulab Khan and acquitted them. Pervez Ahmed was acquitted for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. But was found guilty under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. And sentenced to 10 years' R.I.
2. With a fine of Rs,2,000, or in default six months' R.I. He was also given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Convicts' appeal will be disposed of by this judgment.
3. ' The prosecution story in brief as given in the F.I.R. Lodged by Khair Din on 28-8-1986, was to the effect that he had installed a wheat grinding machine in his village which used to be operated with electricity. Eighteen/twenty days earlier their transformer was not working properly as one phase did not function at all and electricity was in other two phases only. His machine could not function but electricity was available for domestic consumption. He gave an application to the authorities therefore, on 28-8-1986. At about 2 p.m. Muhammad Hanif Lineman with Irshad Lineman, Shakargarh with helper came to take away the defective transformer. Irshad Lineman was climbing the pole when one Naseer Ahmed with Pervez Ahmed came there and told Irshad that they would not let him remove transformer unless he brought replacement. Both of them pulled him down. The WAPDA people threatened him that they would have a case registered against him for interference. First informant with Muhammad Iqbal also stepped forward and asked Pervez Ahmad not to abuse WAPDA people. Said Pervez Ahmad started abusing the first informant's son as well and told him that at his instance WAPDA people had come to remove the transformer, therefore, he would teach him a lesson and would not let him alive. The first informant stepped forward and pascified both of them. Pervez Ahmad appellant left the spot while threatening. Two hours thereafter Pervez Ahmad with his brother Khadim Hussain and father Gulab Khan again came there. Pervez Ahmed appellant was armed with a knife and his co-accused were empty- handed. On the Lalkara of Gulab Khan, Khadim Hussain co-accused held Muhammad Iqbal and Pervez Ahmad appellant gave an injury on the left side of his chest whereupon he fell down and died subsequently. After the occurrence the accused persons ran away.
4. ' Complaint Exh.P.F. Was lodged on 28-8-1986 at 8 p.m. By Khair Din, father of the deceased, P.W.6. It was recorded by Muhammad Younas, S.I. P.W.8. It was with regard to an occurrence which had taken place the same day at 4/5 p.m. In village Morli, Police Station Lessar KaIan, 8 miles from police station.
5. ' Dr. Saeed Ahmad, M.O. T.H.Q. Hospital. Shakargarh, P.W.4, conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Iqbal deceased and found a stab wound 2 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. On the left side of chest. In his opinion, death was due to shock and haemorrhage caused by injury No,1, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordingy course of nature. The injury was ante-mortem and caused with sharp-edged weapon.
6. ' Muhammad Younas S.I., P.W.8, after recording the statement of the complainant, Exh.P.F., came to hospital and prepared inquest report Exh.P.G. Of the deceased. Thereafter he came to the spot and secured blood-stained Parna P.3 vide memo. Exh.P.D. He recorded statements of the witnesses. He got prepared site plans Exhs.PA. And P.A./1 and gave his notes in red ink thereunder. He arrested Pervez Ahmed appellant on 30-8-1986 and got recovered knife P.4 vide memo. Exh.P.E. At his instance. After usual investigation he challaned the accused.
7. ' The prosecution in support of its case produced 8 witnesses in all. Allah Din, Draftsman P.W.1 had prepared site plans Exhs.PA. And PA./1 on the direction of the police. Rashid Baig, M.H.C. P.W.2 was entrusted with sealed parcels which he kept intact and thereafter sent them to the office of Chemical Examiner. The doctor who had conducted post-mortem examination appeared as P.W.4.
8. Ghulam Rasool P.W.5 had produced Parna P.3 before the police which had been given to him by the doctor.
9. ' The ocular account was furnished by Khair Din and Rashid Ahmed, P.Ws.6 and 7, respectively. Case was investigated by Muhammad Younis, S.L/S.H.O., P.W.8.
10. ' At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence the appellant alongwith co-accused was examined without oath wherein he pleaded innocence. In answer to a question he stated that Muhammad Iqbal deceased was his co-villager with whom he had no enmity. On the fateful day WAPDA employees had come to remove the transformer. He alongwith other villagers objected to it whereupon the decease flared up and had exchange of abuses with him. Both of them started grappling and gave blows to each other. During the scuffle the deceased fell on the ground therefore, he held testicles of the appellant and started sqeezing them. In order to defend himself he took out a pen-knife and gave a solitary injury which proved fatal. Co-accused of the appellant stated that they were not present at the spot. They however, did not produce any defence in their support.
11. ' It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant has not been proved at all because no reliance on the eye-witness account could be placed as they were not relied upon qua the two acquitted co-accused. Submitted that the defence version appears to be more plausible and the same be accepted. Asserted that no corroboration was avairable and uncorroborated testimony of the witnesses may not be relied upon. Contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State.
12. ' I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the file. The place of occurrence and time of occurrence in this case is not disputed. The only point which requires to be resolved is if the occurrence had taken place in the manner alleged by the prosecution or it took place as asserted by the appellant. Prosecution in order to establish its case has mainly relied upon the statements of Khair Din and Rashid Ahmed, P.Ws.6 and 7, respectively. They had given a detailed account of the occurrence and were put to the test of lengthy cross-examination. Khair Din P.W.6 is father of Muhammad Iqbal deceased. He, while, giving evidence in Court, stated that he did not notice knife in the hand of the appellant till it was too late. The same witness in F.I.R. Had, however, stated that he saw the appellant coming armed with knife in his hand. This witness was duly confronted but could not give satisfactory answer. It is prosecution's own case that the appellant had come to the spot and objected regarding the removal of transformer. If that be so it does not appeal to reason that he would go back to his house and bring his father and brother for help yet they would choose to come empty-handed. The eye-witnesses, however, were discredited when they asserted that both the acquitted co-accused were present at the spot, but there was evidence which would indicate that they could not possibly have been present at the spot as one of them was marked present in the office. From the above narration, it is clear that the prosecution witnesses have also not come out with whole truth, therefore, reconstructed the scene. It is held that the occurrence took place when the appellant had objected about the removal of transformer. This led to an altercation whereupon he took out a knife and gave a solitary blow to the deceased which proved fatal. The defence version that he had acted under right of self-defence that the deceased was squeezing his testicles is not believed. In such a position the appellant could not have managed to give knife blow on the chest of the deceased. The occurrence took place at the spur of the moment without premeditation, therefore, the conviction and sentence already awarded by, the trial Court under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. Is legal and in accordance with the evidence available. No exception to the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court can be taken. In these circumstances, appeal, fails, which is accordingly dismissed.