' Muhammad Zahid aged about 15 years was tried for the murder of Ishfaq Ahmad deceased and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur vide his impugned judgment dated 8-12-1990 convicted and sentenced the appellant under section 302, P.P.C. To undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,5,000 in default whereof to suffer further R.I. For 2 years. He was also directed to pay an amount of Rs,10,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. And in case of default in its payment to suffer further R.I. For 6 months. Hence this appeal.
Connected Criminal Revision No,84 of 199/BWP shall also be decided by this judgment.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that P.W.6 Muhammad Nawaz on 16-7-1989 lodged F.I.R. Exh.PD at Police Station Rajgaan, District Bahawalpur, recorded by P.W.12 Muhammad Ramzan, Inspector S.H.O. To the effect that ha. Was resident of Chak No, 113-DNB and was cultivator. On 12-7- 1989 a dispute arose between P.W.5 Muhammad Shahid, sister's brother of Ishfaaq Ahmad, son of the deceased and accused Muhammad Zahid on account of flying of pigeons. Ishfaaq Ahmad deceased while helping his wife's brother had abused Muhammad Zahid, appellant and had also grappled with him. On the same evening the respectables of the village had reconciled the matter between the parties, but Muhammad Zahid appellant had a grievance in his heart and on 16-7- 1989 when the complainant's son deceased Ishfaaq Ahmad, P.W.8 Ghulam Mustafa and P.W.7 Muhammad Ashraf residents of the village were sitting in the evening at the Chowk of the village, the deceased went in the adjoining mosque to offer Mar prayer and after the prayers at about 6- 00 p.m. Left for his house and when he reached the Ehata of Muhammad Ilyas, appellant Muhammad Zahid who had concealed himself in the Ehata beside the wood, armed with .12 bore pistol emerged, raised Lalkara to the deceased that he would teach a iesson of his insult and fired with the pistol at lshfaaq Ahmad, which hit on the front side of his chest and abdomen. After hearing pistol shot, the prosecution witnesses rushed towards the spot. Meanwhile the appellant after reloading his pistol made second fire shot, which had hit on the legs of the deceased. The P.Ws. Tried to apprehend Muhammad Zahid appellant, who also threatened that if they would come near, they would meet the same fate. The appellant escaped with the pistol. Ishfaaq Ahmkd deceased had become unconscious due to the injuries and the -blood was oozing out from the wounds. He was immediately taken in a car to the Hospital, Sadar Rajgaan, but on reaching the Hospital the deceased succumbed to his injuries. Leaving behind the dead body of the deceased under the guard of Ch. Ijaz, Lamberdar, P.W.9, the complainant reached the police station and made statement.
3. The appellant was challaned and sent up for trial. A charge under section 302, P.P.C. Was framed against him, to which he denied and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution examined 13 P.Ws. In all to substantiate its case and produced evidence of motive as stated by P.W.6 Muhammad Nawaz, complainant and P.W.9 Ijaz Ahmad. The ocular account was furnished on record by the statements of P.W.6 Muhammad Nawaz, P.W.7 Muhammad Ashraf and P.W.8 Ghulam Mustafa. P.W3 Dr. Muhammad Iqbal Shaheen conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. The evidence of recovery was brought on record by the statements of P.W.7 Muhammad Ashraf, P.W.8 Ghulam Mustafa, P.W.9 Ijaz Ahmad and P.W.12 Muhammad Ramzan, S.H.O. The other P.Ws. Are of formal nature.
5. The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution evidence against him and also recovery of .12 bore pistol P.3 at his instance.
When asked "Have you anything else to say?", the appellant made the following statement:--- "I produce my written statement. The deceased was prone to sodomy and had been teasing me as well as some other teen-ager boys for that purpose. He had several enemies on that account."
' He produced his school leaving certificate Exh.DD and also produced D.W.1 Abdul Hamid, Headmaster to prove the contents of Exhs.DD and D.W.2 Abid Hussain, maternal-uncle of the appellant, who stated that the appellant was with him at the relevant time and he had produced him before the police. The appellant did not make statement on oath as envisaged under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
6. After examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court relied on the testimony of the P.Ws. Convicted and sentenced the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the motive set up by the prosecution has not been proved on record, the ocular testimony furnished on record is not in consonance with the medical evidence and the recovery evidence has been disbelieved by the trial Court.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties in the light of evidence available on record. The motive behind the occurrence has been furnished on record by the statements of P.W.5 Muhammad Shahid, P.W.6 Muhammad Nawaz complainant and P.W.9 Ijaz Ahmad. The complainant (P.W. 6) narrated in the F.I.R. Exh.PD that on 12-7-1989. The appellant had quarrelled with P.W.5 Muhammad Shahid, sister's brother of Ishfaaq Ahmad deceased and the appellant on flying of pigeons. P.W.6 had also slated so in his statement before the trial Court. P.W.5 Muhammad Shahid stated that four days prior to occurrence Zahid appellant came to his house at about 12-00 noon, and demanded his she-pigeon which had flown to his house, on which P.W.5 Muhammad Shahid had stated that the appellant should return his pigeon at first. Meanwhile, Ishfaaq Ahmad deceased reached and inquired about the cause of quarrel and the appellant abused the deceased saying that he would teach him a lesson. He had further stated that the appellant and the deceased had grappled with each other, but they were separated by the villagers, and meanwhile ljaz Ahmad, Lamberdar (P.W.9) and Alam Cheema P.W. (not produced) brought about reconciliation. P.W.9 Ijaz Ahmed stated that he had brought about reconciliation between the appellant and the deceased four days prior to the occurrence, and during cross-examination had stated that the earlier dispute related to a pigeon caught by P.W.5 Muhammad Shahid, which belonged to another Shahid, brother of the appellant and slaughtered by P.W.5.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the motive behind the occurrence has not been proved on the record and that it was a petty motive, if at all and a remote one, which could not be the motive for the murder. The motive is a double-edged weapon and motiveless murders are also committed.
9. The ocular account has been furnished on record by the statements of P.W.6 Muhammad Nawaz, father of the deceased, P.W.7 Muhammad Ashraf and P.W.8 Ghulam Mustafa, who are not related to the either party. P.W.6 Muhammad Nawaz lodged F.I.R. Exh.PD and had stated that within his view the appellant emerged from behind the wood armed with a .12 bore pistol, raised Lallcara to his deceased son that he would teach him a lesson of his insult and fired with pistol at the deceased, which had hit on his chest and abdomen. P.W.6 Muhammad Nawaz alongwith P.W.7 Muhammad Ashraf and P.W.8 Ghulam Mustafa after hearing the fire-shot rushed towards the spot and within their view the appellant fired second shot which had hit the deceased on his legs. The P.Ws. Tried to apprehend the appellant, who threatened them and escaped. P.W.6 corroborated the contents of F.I.R. Exh.PD in his statement before the trial Court. P.W.7 Muhammad Ashraf had stated that he alongwith P.W.8 Ghulam Mustafa and P.W.6 Muhammad_Nawaz was present in the Chowk, the deceased went to the mosque to offer prayers and proceeded back, and on the way to his house the appellant while sitting in ambush in a desolated Ihata of Ryas Malli, Advocate came out, shouted at the deceased to teach him a lesson for the insult caused and fired from his pistol on the chest and abdomen of the deceased. On hearing the shot, P.Ws. Rushed towards the place, when the appellant fired second shot hitting the deceased on his leg. The P.Ws. Tried to intervene, but the appellant issued threats of dire consequences and escaped. P.W.8 Ghulam Mustafa, who was sitting alongwith P.W.7 and P.W.6 witnessed the appellant emerging out from behind dry branches of, cotton from near the Ihata of Ilyas Malli armed with .12 bore pistol and shouted at the deceased that he would teach him a lesson for disgrace caused earlier. The appellant fired on Ishfaaq Ahmad deceased from his pistol hitting on his chest and abdomen. He also fired second shot which hit the deceased on legs. The P.Ws. Rushed to the venue of occurrence to intervene but the appellant issued threats of dire consequences, and ran away with his pistol.
10. No doubt the complainant Muhammad Nawaz (P.W.6) is the father of the deceased, but P.W.7 Muhammad Ashraf and P.W.8 Ghulam Mustafa are not related to the deceased. They have no motive whatsoever to falsely involve the accused in the present case. P.Ws.6, 7 and 8 have made their statements in a straightforward manner and implicit reliance can be placed on their testimony.
11. The medical evidence on record has been furnished by the statement of P.W3 Dr. Iqbal Shaheen who found the following injuries:-
(1) A circular lac rated wound of 1 c.m. Rounded above the nipple at 2nd intercostel space of left side.
(2) A circular rounded lacerated wound above the umbilicus at 8 c.m. On left side.
(3) A lacerated wound of 6 c.m. Of supra pubic on right side.
(4) There are two lacerated wounds on dorsum of right on right hand one between index and middle finger second at fourth matacarpal.
(5) Two lacerated wounds on left index finger (external and internal).
(6) A lacerated wound on middle side right knee.
(7) There are five lacerated wound on lower right leg.
(8) A lacerated wound on left on broundle side.
(9) A lacerated wound on back side on left leg below left knee.
(10) Two lacerated wounds on back side of right knee.
' The cause of death was due to heart injury (rupture of heart), much blood loss occurred and the blood was present around the heart, and as a result of Hypovolonic shock, due to injury No,1 caused by fire-arm. All the other injuries were caused by the same fire-arm weapon and were ante- mortem. Time that elapsed between injuries and death was 5 to 10 minutes and between death and post-mortem about fourteen hours. Copy of post-mortem report is Exh.PA,
12. It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased had received injuries Nos.4, 9 and 10 on the back and eyewitnesses P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 had not stated about the receipt of injuries on the back of the deceased. No doubt P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 have not stated specifically about the receipt of injuries on the back by the deceased. The appellant is alleged to have fired two shots and the first fire was received by the deceased at his chest and abdomen and the eye-witnesses are unanimous on that point and after the fire of first shot, they rushed towards the deceased who might have had turned his face to run away and the accused meanwhile fired the second shot which had hit on his back. Moreover, where there is confidence inspiring ocular account, the medical evidence is only a corroborative piece of evidence. The statements made by P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8, the eye-witnesses have already been found confidence inspiring.
13. The recovery aspect of the case has been furnished on record by the statement of P.W.9 Ijaz Ahmad Lamberdar, who stated that in his presence the appellant led to the recovery of pistol P.3 from his house which was secured by S.H.O. Muhammad Ramzan (P.W.12) vide memo Exh.PH attested by him. P.W.7 Muhammad Ashraf and P.W.8 Ghulam Mustafa had witnessed the recovery of empty P.2 secured by P.W.12 S.H.O. From the spot vide memo. Exh.PG attested by them. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Exh.PN is positive, but it is pertinent to mention here that the recovery aspect of the case was not believed by the trial Court as the parcel containing empty cartridge was not proved to have been sent and received in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory.
14. F.I.R. Exh.PD recorded on the statement of P.W.6 Muhammad Nawaz contains the name of the appellant, the witnesses, the weapon carried by the appellant and the manner in which the occurrence took place, all are given therein. P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 (eye-witnesses) had no motive whatsoever to falsely involve the appellant in the present case and their statements have already been found confidence inspiring. P.Ws. Have no animus against the appellant. Except minor discrepancies here and there, nothing was brought on record by the defence that the P.Ws. Had made dishonest and material improvements in their statements.
15. The prosecution has succeeded in establishing and proving its case beyond doubt against the appellant and no exception' can be taken to the c impugned judgment. The sentence of imprisonment for life awarded by the trial Court is maintained. The appellant shall be extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. However, in view of age of the appellant, the sentence in default of payment of fine of Rs,5,000 is reduced from 2 years' R.I. To 6 months' R.I. And the amount of compensation of Rs,10,000 is reduced to Rs,5,000 but the sentence of 6 months' R.I. In default of payment of the same is maintained. Connected Criminal Revision No,84 of 1990/BWP has no merit and is dismissed.