1. SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J: --The appellant was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, under section 302, I'.P.C. For committing mwder of one Muhammad Ramzan on 6-8-1987 and was convicted under the said Section and sentenced to death plus fine of Rs.5,000 or in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. For one year. He was also directed to pay Rs.5,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. And in default to undergo R.I. For 3 .
2. Months. By judgment dated 15-1-1992, the learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court confirmed the death sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal against his conviction and sentence. Leave was granted against the judgment of High Court by this Court on 30-11-1992 as follows:-- "Leave to appeal is granted only to examine whether it was a case of IA conviction under section 302, P.P.C. And sentence of death for the following reasons:---
(1) Occurrence had taken place or 6-8-1987; (2)The deceased was operated upon and taken from one hospital to another too frequently;
(3) Not the carbine injury but the surgical injury was the immediate cause death."
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned State counsel and are of the view that no case for interference with the judgment of High Court is made out.
4. The incident in this case took place on 6-8-1987 at 3-GO p.m. Near the field of one Fazil Shah. The F.LR. Was lodged by the father of the deceased in Police Station Tandlianwala, District Faisalabad at 7-00 p.m. According to F.LR. The complainant at about 3 o'clock on the day of incident was carrying his meal and when he reached near the land of one Fazil Shah he saw the appellant armed with a carbine who opened fire on his son, deceased Muhammad Ramzan, which hit on the abdomen and both the shoulders of the deceased. The complainant and his deceased son raised alarm which attracted Zulfiqar son of Bakhtawar and Bashir son of Jan Muhammad Arain. On seeing the complainant and the witnesses, the accused made good his escape. The motive for the murder was stated to be that the deceased was betrothed to one Mst. Bibi daughter of Ameer with whom the appellant wanted to marry and in order to eliminate the deceased the appellant killed him by firing with his arm. The F.LR. Was initially registered under section 307, P.P.C. But on account of subsequent death of the deceased section 302, P.P.C. Was added in the case. The trial Court as well as the High Court have believed the ocular evidence in the case which was found confidence inspiring and there is no reason for us to disagree with the appreciation of evidence by the two Courts below. However, from perusal of the leave granting order, it is clear that leave has been granted on the question of sentence as it was argued before the Court at the leave granting stage that the death of the deceased was not the direct result of fire--arm injury but on account of negligence in the treatment of the deceased.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased had survived for over a month after he suffered injuries at the hand of the appellant which itself is sufficient to demonstrate -that the cause of death was not relatable to the injury caused by the appellant by his fire-arm. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the medial evidence as well as ocular evidence in the case also supported the defence plea that because of improper medical care death of the deceased resulted. We have carefully gone through the medical evidence in the case. P.W.1 is Dr. Mumtaz Ahmed Bajwa, who initially examined the deceased. At the time of examination by Dr. Mumtaz he found.3 gunshot wounds on the body of the deceased. First one was a gunshot injury measuring 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. And bone deep on medial and posterior part of right fore-arm without an exit wound. The second was a lacerated gunshot entrance wound 3/4 c.m. x 3/4 c.m. On medial and posterior lower part of the left forearm with exit wound measuring1 c.m. x 1 c.m. On posterior and outer lower part of left forearm and the 3rd were three lacerated gunshots wounds each about 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. On abdomen without tooting or blackening marks.
6. According to statement of Dr. Mumtaz, he had provided first-aid to the deceased and then.
7. Referred him to District Headquarters Hospital (D.H.Q.), Faisalabad as his condition was considered serious. Next evidence in the case is of Dr. Anwar Snood Saqib, C.M.O. Tehsil Headquarter Hospital, Samundri who performed post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased after his death. In the post-mortem examination report he liar mentioned 5 injuries and out of them injury No.5. Was described as grievous and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of the nature.
8. He admitted in his cross-examination that the deceased was operated upon for injury No.5 at D.H.Q. Hospital, Faisalabad. He was cross-examined at length by the counsel for the appellant to show that the death of the deceased was not connected directly with the fire-arm injury but he consistently maintained in the cross-examination that the death of the deceased was on account of injury No.5 which was caused by a fire-arm. The following statement was made by the Doctor in cross-examination:-- "My own opinion was also this that injury No.5 on the person of the deceased was the result of fire- arm weapon. Volunteered that I had also gone through the operation notes of the deceased when he was admitted in the hospital It was incorrect that injury No.5 was not the result of fire-arm weapon and I bad declared the same as such only on the basis of the opinion of the Medical Officer given in the operation notes and the opinion of the police given in the inquest report."
9. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the deceased himself was responsible for aggravation of his injury as he left D.H.Q. Faisalabad of his own and was later on re-admitted in Tehsil Headquarter Hospital, Samundri. It is also contended by the learned counsel that from the statement of the complainant, it is quite clear that before being admitted in the D.H.Q. Faisalabad, the deceased was shifted from one Dispensary to another which aggravated his injuries. We have gone through the statement of the complainant who has given a satisfactory explanation of shifting the deceased from one place to another. He made following statement in his examination: "A constable accompanied me with Muhammad Ramzan injured and we took him to Civil Hospital Tandlianwala. The Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Tandlianwala was not present in Hospital, so I shifted the injured to Pindi Sheikh Musa Dispensary and there he was medically examined by the Medical Officer. The Medical Officer told me that he could not properly treat the injured in the Dispensary, so he directed me to take the injured to D.H.Q. Hospital, Faisalabad. I, therefore, shifted the injured to D.H.Q. Hospital for the purpose of medical treatment. Muhammad Ramzan was admitted in the hospital for the purpose of his treatment. Muhammad Ramzan injured way discharged from the hospital by the Hospital Authorities saying that he could not be given proper treatment. The Medical Authorities told me that the injured could not be saved. I then took him to Civil Hospital, Tandlianwala."
10. From the statement made by the complainant reproduced above, it is quite clear that the shifting of the deceased from one hospital to another way necessitated as there was nobody to attend him. There is nothing the in the evidence of the complainant or on the 2 doctors examined in the case, that on account of such shifting of the deceased from one dispensary to another hi; injuries were aggravated or that the ultimate result of his death was the negligence in his treatment. There was no suggestion to the complainant in the cross-examination that the deceased either of his own or deliberately shifted from D.H.Q. Hospital, Faisalabad to Tehsil Headquarters Hospital, Sumundri On the contrary, the complainant asserted that he was discharged by D.H.Q Hospital authorities as there was no proper treatment available to the deceased. After examining the evidence in the case, we do not find and mitigating circumstance in the case for reduction in the sentence awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.