' MUHAMMAD AMIR MALIK, J.---Shaukat Ali appellant (18/19 years) was convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala vide judgment dated 31-7-1990 under section 302, P.P.C. for the murder of Muhammad Siddiq and sentenced to death and a fine of Rs, 5,000 or in default thereof two years' R.I. He was also directed to pay a compensation of Rs, 10,000 to the heirs of the deceased or instead to undergo six months' R.I.
' He has appealed and the learned trial Judge has also referred the case of confirmation of the death sentence.
2. The occurrence took place at the house of Sufi Akbar, the husband of the paternal-aunt of the appellant in Street No, 1, Mohallah Muhammadpura, Gujranwala at a distance of one kilometre from P.S. Model Town, Gujranwala at 2-00 a.m. on 20-7-1988. Muhammad Yaqub complainant (P.W.3) reached police station and lodged the F.I.R. (Exh. PB) with Akbar Ali, A.S.I. (P.W.7) at 2-45 a.m.
3. The version given in the FIR is that an amount of Rs, 600 was due from Shaukat Ali appellant to Muhammad Siddique (deceased). Two days before the occurrence the deceased had demanded the return of his money in the Bazar and the appellant had put him off. On the night of occurrence at about 10-00 p.m. the deceased asked the complainant to help him in the return of the money.
On this Yaqub complainant (P.W.3), Muhammad Hussain (P.W.4) and Muhammad Mahboob (given up) alongwith the deceased reached the house of Sufi Akbar, the appellant and Subhani, a son of Sufi Akbar, were present while the other family members had gone to the village. Money was demanded from the appellant who told that he had no money and when he would be in a position to pay, he would pay. On this the deceased and the appellant exchanged hot words (Talkh Kalami). They were, however, separated and made to compromise.
4. The version goes on that the appellant placed the cots on the roof where the deceased and the witnesses went to sleep at about 12-00 mid-night. The appellant and Subhani came down to sleep in the Deuri. At about 2-00 a.m. there was the shriek of the deceased and the witnesses got up.
They saw the appellant giving Chhurri blows to the deceased in the neck, chest, left shoulder and back. When the witnesses tried to intervene they were threatened to keep away. They raised alarm and attracted the people of the Mohallah. The appellant came down the stairs and when he entered a room, it was chained from outside. The deceased expired at the spot.
5. The post-mortem examination on the dead body of Siddique (deceased) was performed by Dr. Muhammad Anwar Sajjad (P.W. 5) on 20-7-1988 at 1-30 p.m. Following injuries were found on it:---
(1) Incised wound 6-1/2 c.m. x 2-1/2 c.m. going deep on front of neck at its base in midline and adjacent part of the chest, it was superficial on right.
(2) Incised wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. going deep upper and midline of the left chest below lower and of clavical.
(3) Incised wound 3 c.m x 1.1/2 c.m. going deep on lower part of the right chest 4 c.m. from right nipple and 3 c.m.
(4) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m. going deep on the lower part of left chest 5 c.m. below nipple and 3 c.m. from midline.
(5) Incised wound 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. going deep on left side mid exillary line in 9th inter space with 10th rib cut.
(6) Incised wound 4 c.m. x 1 c.m. on lateral side of left hip-pint skin deep.
(7) Incised wound 4 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. going deep on back of the left mid scapular line 3 c.m. below its midline.
(8) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m. skin deep lower end of the back of left chest in mid scapular line.
(9) Incised wound 1 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. on skin deep on back of left hip.
' Right and left pleurae were cut under injuries Nos.3 and 4. Trachia was cut under injury No,1, right lung perforated under injury No,3 and pericardiam and left side of heart perforated under injury No,4. External carotid artry and external jugular veins were also cut on the right side under injury No,1. Spleen was cut under injury No, 5 with 10th rib on the left side.
' In the opinion of the doctor all the injuries were ante-mortem and the sharp-edged weapon.
Death was due to haemorrhage and shock, on account of injuries Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 which were sufficient to result in death in the ordinary course of nature collectively as well as individually. The death was immediate and the probable time between the death and post-mortem examination was 11/12 hours,
6. Akbar Ali, A.S.I. (P.W.7) investigated the case. After recording the F.I.R. he reached the spot and found the dead body lying on a cot at the roof. He prepared injury statement and inquest report (Exhs. PG & PH). He recovered cot, Darri, pillow, Parna (P.1 to P.4) and blood-stained earth vide memo. (Exh. PC). Shaukat All appellant was confined in a room of the house. He was arrested. His Dhoti (P.6) was blood-stained, was removed from his person and sealed into a parcel (Exh. PE). He also got recovered blood-stained Chhurri (P.5) from the house and was secured vide memo.
(Exh.PD).
7. In his statement at the close of the trial under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant admitted that he was living at the house of his paternal-aunt's husband Sufi Muhammad Akbar (the house of occurrence). He denied having committed the murder or having been arrested from the house with the blood stained Dhoti or got recovered the Chhuri. When asked why the case against him, he replied:--- "The PWs were not present at the spot. A dacoity was committed in the house of Sufi Akbar Ali where at pistol point those dacoits extracted money from me and confined me in a room whereas the deceased resisted the dacoits who was killed during the process of resistance. The police fabricated this case against me in order to conceal the real occurrence of dacoity. The P.Ws. are inimical towards me as I and all the P.Ws. relate from same place in Azad Kashmir."
' He also made statement on oath. He stated that when he reached the house Subhani son of Sufi Akbar and Siddique (the deceased) were present at 1-30 a.m. The light went off and a candle was lit. When the three were sitting five persons entered the house with muffled faces. He was deprived of Rs, 300, and wrist watch on dagger-point. He ran into a room and one of the five culprits bolted the door from outside. Siddiq (deceased) continued resisting the culprits for about 25 minutes. He was brought out from the room by the police. Forty/fifty persons of the Mohallah assembled who informed the police that a dacoity had been committed. The Police did not pay heed to them, arrested him and fabricated the case against him. In cross-examination he admitted that the deceased was dealing in iron scrap, he had relations with him as they belonged to the same village in Azad Kashmir and his version regarding the dacoity was not accepted by the Police. No case of dacoity was registered on the statement of Subhani or his father Akbar Ali.
8. Muhammad Yaqub and Muhammad Hussain (P.Ws. 3 and 4) have given the ocular account of the occurrence. Siddique (deceased) was a maternal-cousin of Yaqub complainant. Mahboob (given up P.W.) is the brother of the complainant. Muhammad Hussain P.W. is from their brotherhood. The witnesses and the deceased were living in front of the house of the deceased at a distance of about one mile or so from the house of Sufi Akbar. The two eye-witnesses have reiterated the version given in the FIR as to the motive as well as the actual occurrence. They are completely independent and disinterested. Nothing could be extracted from them favourable to the appellant in cross-examination. Their version is corroborated from the statement of the investigator, in that, the. cots were lying on the roof, the blood-stained cot, Darri, pillow and Parna (P.1 to P.4) were taken into possession from there. The appellant was bolted inside the room, was taken out and his blood-stained Dhoti recovered. The eye-witnesses were not seriously cross- examined on the point of dacoity. What was suggested to them was that there used to be thefts in the Mohallah where the house of Sufi Akbar was situated. Akbar Ali, investigator admitted in cross- examination, that many persons of the Mohallah had gathered at the spot but he was not cross- examined at all that actually there had been a dacoity, the Mohallandars had supported this fact or he had fabricated the case against the appellant. In any case, we do not find any reason why the matter of dacoity could have been suppressed by the Police and the appellant taken as culprit.
9. After having taken us through the record the learned counsel for the appellant could not say anything against conviction. His request was that the appellant being young and in his teens a lenient view in the matter of sentence may be taken. We arc not inclined to grant the request inasmuch as we find no extenuating circumstance in favour of the appellant. The deceased had advanced money to him, had demanded it and on the night of occurrence had come with the witnesses to again make a request for the return thereof, the appellant firstly disputed and after having settled down committed the murder, when the deceased was asleep. The death sentence is, therefore, confirmed. Appeal is dismissed and the Reference answered accordingly.