' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---Farid son of Rehman appellant, alongwith Munir son of Ahmad, Akram and Afzal sons of Saee, Muhammad Munir son of Manik and Khalid son of Mirza (all acquitted accused) faced trial for the charge under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. In a private complaint filed by Bashir Ahmad P.W.11 son of Ahmad Khan deceased before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhalwal who vide his judgment dated 4-3-1991 found the appellant guilty under section 302/307, P.P.C. And convicted him accordingly. The appellant was awarded sentence of death under section 302, P.P.C. With a fine of Rs,50,000 and in default of the payment of fine to undergo R.I. For five years. He was sentenced to five years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,10,000 and in default of the payment of fine to undergo R.I. For two years under section 307, P.P.C. A sum of Rs,30,000 out of the fine awarded to the appellant under section 302, P.P.C. If realized was directed to be paid to the legal heirs of Ahmad Khan deceased and an amount of Rs,5,000 out of the fine awarded to him under section 307, P.P.C. If realized was directed to be paid to Bashir Ahmad injured as compensation. The appellant was allowed the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. In respect of his sentence under section 307, P.P.C. The remaining accused were acquitted of the charge giving them the benefit of doubt and their acquittal attained finality for want of challenging it. Farid appellant has filed Crl. A. 250 of 1991 and trial Court has made a reference under. Section 374, Cr.P.C. For confirmation of death sentence. Both these matters shall be disposed of by this single judgment.
2. Initially case was registered against the appellant and his co-accused vide F.I.R. Exh.PK lodged by Anar Khan son of Ghulam Muhammad P.W.12 with Police Station Kot Moman on 3-8-1988 at 6 a.m.
During the investigation, the police found the co-accused of the appellant innocent and got them discharged from the case and challaned one Salhoon with appellant to face the trial. The complainant being aggrieved of investigation of the police filed a private complaint against the accused nominated in the F.I.R.
3. Precisely, the facts of the prosecution case as set out in the private complaint and the F.I.R. Are as under:--- "That on 3-8-1988 at 4-30 a.m. Bashir Ahmad complainant P.W.11, Ahmad Khan deceased his father and Mar Khan P.W.12 on whose statement case was registered vide F.I.R. Exh.PK were sleeping at the Dera of the deceased situated within the area of village Rawana at the distance of five miles from the police station when the appellant and Munir his acquitted co-accused armed with hatchets, Akram with Sota, Munir and Afzal with guns and Khalid with hatchet appeared at the scene. Farid raised Lalkara to take revenge from Ahmad Khan for assaulting him 10 years ago. Ahmad Khan deceased stood from his cot when was fired at by Afzal acquitted accused and thereafter Farid appellant gave two successive hatchet blows to the deceased which landed on his head. Khalid and Munir acquitted accused also gave two hatchet blows each to the deceased. Akram caused Sota blow on the head of the deceased whereas Munir son of Munik struck the deceased with butt of his gun whereas Munir son of Ahmad and Khalid gave one hatchet blow each to the deceased.
Bashir Ahmad complainant when interfered to save the life of his father was given three hatchet blows each by Farid appellant, Khalid and Munir acquitted accused. Akram acquitted accused caused one Sota blow to Bashir injured P.W. The occurrence was also witnessed by Mar Khan and Muhammad Anwar."
4. The motive for the occurrence was that Ahmad Khan deceased with others had injured Farid appellant and his companions in 1978 for which a case was registered against them vide F.I.R.
Exh.PE but in consequence of their acquittal, the appellant and his co-accused to take revenge from the deceased attacked on him. A case was registered against the accused on the report (Exh.PK) lodged by Mar Khan P.W.12, Shafqat Ullah S.I. P.W.14 and Karim Nawaz S.H.O. P.W.15 investigated the case. Shafqat Ullah S.I. P.W. 14 prepared injury statement Exh.PM, inquest report Exh.PO of the deceased and despatched the dead body to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. He collected blood-stained earth from the spot vide memo. Exh.PI. He got prepared site plan Exh.PG and Exh.PG/1 from P.W.5 and recorded the statements of P.Ws. Under section 161, Cr.P.C. Karim Nawaz S.H.O. P.W.15 arrested the appellant and the acquitted accused on 30-9-1988.
Farid appellant led to the recovery of blood-stained hatchet P1 on 12-10-1988 which was taken into possession vide memo Exh.PH. He prepared rough sketch Exh.PH/1 of the place of recovery of the hatchet. He challaned Farid and Salhoon to face the trial and got discharged the remaining accused from the case.
5. Doctor Riaz Ahmad Awan conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased on 3-8- 1988 at 8-30 a.m. And found the following injuries on his person: INJURIES:
(1) An incised wound 6 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x bone deep on left side of head 12 c.m. Above left ear.
(2) An incised wound 4 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x bone deep on top of head 6 can. Above hairy line and touching Injury No,1.
(3) A lacerated wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep on left side of head, 11 c.m. Behind the left ear.
(4) A lacerated wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep on left side of head, 6 c.m. Above left ear.
(5) A lacerated wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x muscle deep on back of left side of neck.
(6) An incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x muscles deep on middle of upper lip.
(7) A lacerated wound with blackening with inverted edges 1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. On front of chin in middle.
(8) A multiple fire-arm wound of entry in an area of 12 c.m. x 6 c.m. On front of neck.
(9) An incised wound 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. x muscles deep in front of left forearm.
(10) An incised wound 4 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m. x bone deep on back of left shoulder.
(11) An incised wound 9 c.m. x 3 c.m. x cutting the right scapula.
(12) An incised wound 9 c.m. x 3 c.m.. x cutting the right scapula 2 c.m. Below Injury No,11.
(13) An incised wound 8 c.m. x 6 c.m. x cutting the chip of left humerous bone of left arm 8 c.m.
Below left shoulder.
(14) An incised wound 4 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. Muscle deep on outer side of left outer side of lower 1/3rd of left arm.
6. Injuries Nos.7 and 8 were caused with fire-arm and Injuries Nos.1 to 6 and 9 to 14 were caused with sharp-edged weapon and the rest with blunt weapon. In his opinion, death was occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of Injuries Nos.1 to 14 which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
' The same doctor medically examined Bashir Ahmad injured and found the following injuries on his person:---
(1) An incised wound 8 c.m. x 2 c.m. x bone deep on the back of head on left side 10 c.m. Above left ear.
(2) An incised wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep on the middle of left eye-brow.
(3) An incised wound 5 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m. x bone deep on the right side of forehead just touching the right eye-brow with depression 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. On right side of the forehead on front of head.
(4) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep on the back and middle of neck.
(5) An incised wound 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep on the back of left chest, in the middle of left scapula.
(6) An incised wound 8 c.m. x 3 c.m. x cutting the muscle and wounds of back and outer side of right hand.
(7) A lacerated wound 5 c.m. x 2 c.m. x bone deep on right side of neck, 3 c.m. Below right ear.
(8) A lacerated wound 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. On front and lower part of pinna of right ear.
(9) An incised wound 6 c.m. x 2 c.m. x muscle deep on the front of right shoulder.
(10) An incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep on the back and middle of right chest 5 c.m. From mid-line.
' Injuries Nos.7 and 8 were with blunt while the remaining injuries were with sharp edged weapon.
Injuries Nos.1, 3 and 6 were declared dangerous to life.
7. The prosecution mainly placed reliance on the eye-witness account of the case to prove the charge. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Anar Khan P.W.12 and private complaint was filed by Bashir Ahmad P.W.11 but they corroborated each other on all material points with no notable discrepancy and contradiction.
8. The appellant and acquitted accused denied the prosecution allegation with the plea of innocence and false implication in the case due to enmity. However, they did not produce any evidence in their defence.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that both the eyewitnesses being closely related to the deceased are inimical towards the appellant, therefore, no implicit reliance can be placed on their testimony without corroboration from an independent source. The second limb of his argument was that the role attributed to the appellant being not distinguishable to that of the acquitted accused, he be also extended the same benefit. He further argued that after.Exclusion of evidence of P.W.8, the trial Court was not justified to award major penalty to the appellant on the basis of sole evidence of P.W.11.
10. The learned counsel for the State submitted that the ocular account qua appellant seeks sufficient corroboration from independent source and case against him is proved beyond all reasonable doubts. He argued that there is no valid ground or the mitigating circumstance available in favour of the appellant to award him lesser penalty.
11. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the State and perused the record carefully with their assistance.
12. The occurrence took place at 4-30 a.m. On 3-8-1988 in the house of the deceased and the report was lodged by Anar Khan P.W.11 at 6 a.m. On the same day with the Police Station Kot Moman at a distance of five miles from the place of occurrence nominating the appellant and the acquitted accused as assailants with the role played by them. Injuries Nos.1 and 2 with sharp- edged weapon on the head region of the deceased are attributed to the appellant who was armed with hatchet. Similarly, Bashir Ahmad P.W.11 son of the deceased received 10 injuries with blunt and sharp-edged weapon. The contents of the complaint Exh.PJ filed by Bashir Ahmad P.W.11 and the F.I.R. Exh.PK lodged . By Anar Khan P.W.12 are the same except that as per complaint Afzal accused also struck butt of his gun to the deceased. P.W.11 has categorically supported the prosecution story given in the complaint and F.I.R. With no material omission or addition. He had no reason to implicate the appellant falsely or substitute him with the actual culprit. He being inmate of the house received injuries in the occurrence and there is nothing on the record to suggest the exclusion of his evidence from consideration. The alleged enmity, if any, was between the appellant and the deceased and P.W.12 a paternal-nephew of the deceased was not a party to it.
' Be that as it may not the deceased but the appellant being aggrieved of the acquittal of the deceased from the case had grudge against him, therefore, the appellant had direct motive against the deceased. The injuries on the person of deceased and Bashir Ahmad P.W.11 attributed to the appellant provide corroboration to the role played by him in the occurrence. The facts and circumstances of the case suggest no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.11 or to insist upon for another corroboratory evidence in addition to motive and the medical evidence. Bashir Ahmad P.W.11 an injured, and natural witness of the occurrence is dependable and inspiring confidence. His evidence being of unimpeachable character seeking corroboration from the contents of F.I.R. And the complainant, the motive and medical evidence and dispelling all doubts notwithstanding his relationship with deceased can be safely relied upon for the conviction. The emphasis is on the quality of the evidence and not the quantity to decide the fate of the case. The testimony of a solitary witness if found reliable, the Court with no hasitation can award the death penalty and the acquittal of co-accused of the appellant for want of availability of corroboratory evidence cannot be beneficial to the appellant in view of the applicability of principal of sifting of the grain from the chaff. We are conscious of the fact that acquittal of Afzal who is attributed fire-arm injuries to the deceased is not based on safe principle of administration of justice but unfortunately the complainant has not challenged his acquittal by way of filing special leave to appeal against the judgment of the trial Court. The suo motu exercise of power under section 439, Cr.P.C. At this stage by this Court shall serve no useful purpose, therefore, the acquittal of co-accused of the appellant does not provide a ground to doubt the testimony of Bashir Ahmad an injured eye-witness.
13. The hatchet PI was recovered from a house in joint possession of the appellant and one Salhoon as narrated by both P.W.8 and P.W.15, therefore, it is not safe to use the hatchet P1 as incriminating material against the appellant.
14. The appellant caused two hatchet injuries on most sensitive and vital part of the body causing extensive damage which from their seat and size were definitely sufficient to cause death, therefore, the opinion of the doctor that Injuries Nos. 1 to 14 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature does not amount to suggest that the injuries attributed to the appellant were not enough to cause death. The remaining injuries as per their location may not possibly individual dangerous to life or even collectively, but Injuries Nos.1 and 2 attributed to the appellant exceptionally can bring no less result than death.There is no other mitigating or extanuating circumstance available on the record in favour of the appellant to exercise discretion to award lesser penalty to him. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is dismissed. The conviction and the sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court under section 302/307, P.P.C. Is maintained. The murder reference is answered in affirmative by confirming the death sentence of the appellant.