' Sardar Ahmad appellant was tried under section 302, P.P.C. For murder of Mukhtar Ahmad by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, who vide his judgment, dated ' 30-8-1990, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, plus a fine of Rs,10,000, in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. For 2 yeaRs, It was ordered that the amount of fine if, recovered, half of the same would be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to him. The convict has filed appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No,653 of 1990 whereas the complainant has filed Criminal Revision No,605 of 1990 for enhancement of sentence. I propose to dispose of both the matters by this judgment.
2. The occurrence took place on 26-9-1989 at 10-00 p.m. In the area of Mohallah Bijligarh, Eidgah Road, Sialkot City and the F.I.R. Exh.PA./1 was recorded on the statement Exh.PA. Of Muhammad Alam complainant (P.W.3) by Bashir Ahmad S.I. Police Station Hajipura, Sialkot the same day at 11- 40 p.m.
3. As for the main occurrence, it is stated by the complainant in the F.I.R. That he was a tonga driver by profession. On the fateful day, at about 10-00 p.m. He alongwith his sons Mukhtar Ahmad deceased, Muhammad Razzaq (given up P.W.) and Muhammad Ishaque (P.W.4) was sitting in public street in front of his house where an electrict bulb was on. Sardar Ahmad accused came there and hurled abuses to his son Mukhtar Ahmad by exhorting to teach him a lesson for earlier abusing him. He then gave Chhuri blow to Mukhtar Ahmad which hit him on left side of his chest.
On receipt of this blow Mukhtar Ahmad fell down. Sardar Ahmad accused with his Chhuri ran away from the spot. The complainant and his son Muhammad Ishaque P.W. And Mukhtar Ahmad (given up P.W.) carried the injured in a tonga to Aliama Iqbal Memorial Hospital, Sialkot, who succumbed to the injuries there.
4. The motive was stated to be that on the day of occurrence early in the morning Mukhtar Ahmad deceased and Sardar Ahmad accused had abused each other and this incident culminated in the present occurrence.
5. The investigation was conducted by Muhammad Irshad A.S.I. (P.W.8). On the same night at about 11-15 p.m. Be went to A.I.M. Hospital Sialkot and examined the dead body of Mukhtar Ahmad deceased there and prepared inquest report Exh.P.G. He despatched the dead body to the mortuary for autopsy under escort of Muhammad Safdar Constable (P.W.2). On the next day on 27- 9-1989 he visited the spot and sketched rough site plan Exh.P.J. He also collected blood-stained earth from the spot vide memo. Exh.P.C. And made it into sealed parcel. After autopsy he took into possession last-worn clothes of Mukhtar Ahmad consisting of one shirt P.1, vest P.2, Lacha P.3 all stained with blood, vide recovery memo. Exh.P.B. On 30-9-1989, he arrested Sardar Ahmad accused at 3-00 p.m. From a place near Amjad Hotel, Sialkot. On 1-10-1989 the aforesaid accused while in police custody got recovered blood-stained Chhuri P.4 from inside the courtyard of his house which was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.P.D. He recorded statements of witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. After completing all the formalities, the challan was submitted in Court.
6. On 27-9-1989, at 9-30 a.m. Dr. Rizwan Mahmood (P.W.7) conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mukhtar Ahmad and he found following injury on his person:- "An incised wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x D.N.P. On the left front of the chest about 5 c.m. Below the left nipple."
' In the opinion of the doctor, injury was grievous in nature and was caused by sharp-edged weapon and was ante-mortem injury. The injury was the cause of death leading to severe haemorrhage and shock which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The death was instantaneous and the time between death and post-mortem was 10 to 11 houRs,
7. The appellant when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution allegations and stated in the following words:- "The deceased and his brother Ishaque had taken some fodder on credit from Ahmad Ali shopkeeper who asked me to convey message to the deceased and his brother to pay the outstanding costs of fodder to him. I accordingly did it. At the house of my father, after a while the deceased armed with Chhuri came and hurled abuses to me and attempted to assault me. My mother intervened but was assaulted and also abused through vulgar and filthy abuses and pushed aside by the deceased. The deceased then ran after me but stumbled over on the threshhold of the outer door of the house of my father and fell down in the street. Chhuri held by him accidentally pierced through his chest and he died."
8. Believing the prosecution evidence, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant as indicated above.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that it is a case of two versions; one version has been given by the defence and the other version' has been put forth by the prosecution. The version given by the appellant is being supported by direct as well as circumstantial evidence, hence it is more probable and nearer to the truth, so the appellant is entitled to acquittal. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
10. The learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment for the reasons mentioned therein.
11. The learned counsel for the complainant who has appeared in Criminal Revision No,605 of 1990, has urged that the sentence imposed upon the appellant is inadequate and by maintaining the conviction, the sentence may be enhanced to death which is normal penalty given under the law.
12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance and have considered their respective submissions mentioned above.
13. Admittedly, it is a case of two versions. As the appellant has not disputed the murder of the deceased but he has given his own explanation. According to his explanation, the deceased died on account of the blow which he received when he ran after the appellant and stumbled over the thresh hold of the outer door of the house of the appellant's father and fell down in the street and Chhuri accidentally pierced through his chest and he died. The prosecution has led evidence of two witnesses who are the natural witnesses of the occurrence being inmates of the house and residents of the locality where the occurrence took place. There is no background of enmity between the parties. On the contrary, Muhammad Alam (P.W.3) no doubt, is the father of the deceased but he is the real uncle of the appellant. Similar is the case of Muhammad Ishaque (P.W.4) the eye-witness of the occurrence. The prosecution case gets corroboration from the recovery of blood-stained Chhuri at the instance of the appellant and this recovery was witnessed by Bashir Ahmad (P.W.5) who had no enmity with the appellant to falsely involve him in this case.
14. The cardinal principle of administration of criminal justice for the decision of a case of two versions is that both the versions are put in juxtaposition and then the Court has to see which version is more plausible and nearer to the truth subject to this qualification that the onus of proof always remains on the prosecution.
15. Applying the aforementioned principle of law to the facts of this case, I find, the prosecution version is being supported by reliable and independent witnesses, whose presence cannot be disputed at the place of occurrence and it gets further corroboration in the form of recovery of blood-stained Chhuri at the instance of the appellant. On the other hand, the defence version seems to be fantastic, ludicrous and is not getting any support from any direct or circumstantial evidence, as no person can receive such an injury in the manner as deposed to by the appellant.
Even the conduct of the appellant after the occurrence belies his defence plea, as he ran away from the scene and was arrested four days after the occurrence, and then got recovered Chhuri P.4, which as per report of the Chemical Examiner was found to be stained with human blood, thus the learned trial Court has rightly believed the prosecution version and there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly.
16. I have heard the learned counsel for the complainant in support of his revision and I find no force in this revision petition because the learned trial Judge has given very convincing reasons while awarding lesser sentence to the appellant. This revision petition is also dismissed.