' MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ, J.-According to the prosecution, the brief facts of the case are that on 00 day of occurrence namely, I1-3-1972, at about 8 or. 8-15 p.m., Muhammad Anwar P. W. After closing his cloth shop in the bazar was going towards his house. When he reached Langarwali Street, Imam Din P. W., who was already proceeding ahead of him, metonym. When these two witnesses took a turn near the said Langarwali Street, they saw Amanat Ali appellant and Ghulam Rasul deceased in grappling position They were quarrelling in an open space near gurdawara. The appellant at that time is alleged to have inflicted a knife blow in the abdomen of Ghulam Rasul deceased. The deceased is alleged to have caught hold of the knife, while it was still in his abdomen, but the present appellant snatched it away from the deceased and while doing so, the fingers of the hand of the deceased were injured. The eye-witnesses claim to have identified the appellant in the light of the bulb which was burning in front of the house of one Khurshid. After inflicting the injuries, the appellant ran away along with the weapon of offence. When the two eyed witnesses reached near Ghulam Rasul deceased, he told them that Amanat All appellant had stabbed him for the reason that the appellant had called upon him to part with his belongings and on the refusal of the deceased, the appellant had inflicted a knife blow. The deceased further told the witnesses that his Camy wrist-watch was also snatched away by the appellant. The witnesses brought Ghulam Rasul in an injured condition to his house which was at a short distance from the place of occurrence. He was then taken to the hospital at Bhai Pheru from where he was removed later on to Mayo Hospital, Lahore. Muhammad Anwar P. W. While going to Police Station Bhai Pheru met the Thanedar at the Bus Stand and there his statement (Exh. P. A.) was recorded by A. S. I. Abdul Jabbar who sent the same to the Police Station where formal F. I. R. (Exh. P. A./I) was registered at 9-45 p.m. The same day. A. S. I. Abdul Jabbar immediately reached the place of occurrence, secured blood-stained earth from three different places and made it into a sealed parcel vide memo. Exh. P. B. He then reached the Mayo Hospital, Lahore, where Muhammad Shafi P. W. Produced the clothes of Ghulam Rasul deceased (Exhs. P. 1 to P. 5) which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. C.
Muhammad Shafi P. W. Also produced before the Investigating Officer currency notes (Exhs. P. 6 to P. 9) amounting to Rs, 80 which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. D. On 14-3-1972 Amanat Ali appellant was produced before him by his father Nawab. On his personal search, blood-stained knife (Exh. P. 10) was secured and taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. E. Wrist- watch (Exh. P. 11) was also taken off from the wrist of the accused and taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. F. The police officer also took into possession the clothes of the appellant (Exhs. P. 12 and P. 13) as they were stained with blood vide Memo. Exh. P. G. And made them into a sealed parcel. On 15-3-1972, he received ruqqa (Exh. P. L.) from the hospital that Ghulam Rasul had expired.
He then reached the hospital, prepared the inquest report (Exh. P. M.) and injury statement (Exh. P.
O.) of the deceased and sent the dead body to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. He also got prepared site plan (Exh. P. H.) from the draftsman. After the usual investigation, the police challaned the appellant under section 302/394, P. P. C. He was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, who vide the impugned judgment dated 29-3-1974, found him guilty under section 302, P. P. C. For the murder of Ghulam Rasul and sentenced him to death subject to confirmation by this Court. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs, 500.00 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Out of the fine, if and when realized, one-half was ordered to be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation. The appellant was also convicted under section 394, P.
P. C. And sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The two sentences of imprisonment one in default of payment of fine and the other substantive sentence of imprisonment were ordered to run consecutively. The appellant was also convicted under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year which was ordered to run concurrently with the substantive sentence awarded under section 394, P. P. C. The appellant has challenged his main convictions and sentences through Criminal Appeal No, 314 of 1974. He has also challenged his conviction and sentence awarded to him under the Arms Ordinance. 1965, through Criminal Appeal No, 336 of 1974. The case is also before us under section 374, Cr. P. C. For the confirmation of the sentence of death. This judgment will dispose of both the Criminal Appeals as well as the Murder Reference.
2. Dr. Safdar Hussain on 11-3-1972, at 10-45 p.m. Medically examined Ghulam Rasul and found the following injuries on his person :-
(1) Stab wound, 1}' x x depth not probed. The wound was placed vertically on abdomen 2" above the umbilicus in midline. A part of omentum was protruding out of the wound.
(2) An incised wound, 3/4' x 3/4' placed on palmer aspect of right index finger at terminal pnalynx with another incised wound 1/4' x 1/4' on middle phalynx palmer aspect.
(3) Multiple incised wounds each 1/4' x 1/4' on palmer aspect of right middle finger.
3. Dr. Sabir Ali on 15-3-1972, at 5-30 p.m. Conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Ghulam Rasul and found the following injuries on it :-
(1) Surgical venesection wounds on the right leg.
(2) Stitched incised wounds seven in number ; three on the right index finger and four on the middle finger on palmer side.
(3) Surgical cigarette drain on the left abdomen.
(4) Stitched surgical supra umbilical incision in midline 7r along with 23 stitches. The original wound of the abdomen was taken up by the surgeon as per operation notes.
' Death in the opinion of the doctor occurred due to shock and haemorrhage. Wound of abdomen was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Probable time between injury and death was about three to four days and between death and post-mortem examination about fifteen hours.
4. The appellant when examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. Denied the prosecution allegation, but produced no evidence in defence.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution produced two eye-witnesses, namely, Muhammad Anwar (P. W. 7) and Imam Din (P. W. 8). The recoveries are supported by Muhammad Din (P. W. 11) in addition to the Investigating Officer. The trial Court believed the statements of the eyewitnesses as corroborated by the medical evidence, the motive and the recoveries and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.
6. Muhammad Anwar and Imam Din P. Ws. Claim to have witnessed the occurrence. The defence has not been able to point out any relationship or even friendship of these witnesses with the complainant party. Similarly, they have got no enmity whatever with the present appellant.
According to the learned defence counsel, although there is no direct relationship of these witnesses with the deceased, yet they belong to the same baradari and, therefore, they supported the prosecution case. Although there is no material available on the record to show that these eye- witnesses in fact belonged to the same baradari of the complainant, yet mere belonging to a particular baradari cannot be sufficient to liable them as interested witnesses. Further, there is no allegation of any enmity of these witnesses with the appellant to falsely implicate him in this case.
In the absence of any such material available on the record, it can be safely inferred that Muhammad Anwar and Imam Din P. Ws. Are quite independent and disinterested witnesses. Both these witnesses are the shopkeepers of that locality. They state that after closing their shops at about 8 p.m. They were going back to their houses. They saw the present appellant Amanat Ali having caught hold of Ghulam Rasul deceased. They were quarrelling with each other. Both the witnesses claim that they saw the present appellants stabbing the deceased in his abdomen with a knife. When the witnesses proceeded further, the appellant ran away by taking off the wrist- watch of the deceased. When they reached near him, Ghulam Rasul told them that the appellant had asked him to part with his belongings and on his refusal he stabbed him. The witnesses by giving support to Ghulam Rasul removed him to his house and placed him on a cot inside his house. Muhammad Amyar P. W. Then proceeded towards the police station to lodge the F. I. R.
Imam Din P. W. And others then removed Ghulam Rasul in an injured condition to the Civil Hospital at Bhai Pheru where the Medical Officer advised them to remove him to the Mayo Hospital, Lahore, as his condition was rather precarious. After this, Imam Din P. W. Returned to his house and Ghulam Rasul was taken to Mayo Hospital by his relatives. We have been taken through the statements of these two eye-witnesses by the learned defence counsel. In spite of lengthy cross-examination, the defence has not been able to shake their testimony. We are convinced that these two witnesses had witnessed the occurrence. The main attack of the learned defence counsel against their testimony is that they are chance witnesses and identification was not possible as it was quite dark and there was no light near the place of occurrence. The main reasoning for labelling these two witnesses as chance witnesses is that these witnesses could follow another shorter route for going to their houses after closing their shops. It is, however, not denied that the present route followed by them also leads to their houses. The mere fact that from their shops more than one street or route leads to their houses and that they followed the present route and not another particular route, would not make them chance witnesses,. It is not denied by the defence that the present route admittedly leads to their houses. These witnesses, therefore, cannot be termed as chance witnesses. As regards the question of identification, it is an admitted fact that the appellant was already known to the witnesses and the deceased and all belong to the same place and the locality. Mai Pheru is a small place. Both the witnesses have stated before the trial Court that they already knew the appellant. Further, we find that there was an electric bulb burning outside the house of Khursbid which is not far away. This house, according to the site plan, is in the same street where the occurrence took place. The appellant being already known to the witnesses and there being some light available, the witnesses were in a position to identify the appellant. Moreover, as mentioned above, these witnesses had no enmity or motive to falsely implicate the appellant.
Accordingly, we find no substance in this plea raised by the defence. These witnesses have been rightly believed by the trial Court and we also endorse the same view.
7. Although the eye-witnesses being quite independent and disinterested and having no motive whatever to falsely implicate the appellant, do not require corroboration and conviction can be maintained on their testimony alone, yet sufficient corroboration from independent sources is available on the record against the appellant. The recoveries in this case provide very strong piece of corroboration. When the appellant was produced by his father Nawab before the Investigating Officer on 14-3-1972, a bloodstained knife (Exh. P. 10) and a wrist-watch (Exh. P. 11) were recovered from him and taken into possession. These recoveries are supported by Muhammad Din (P. W. 11) in addition to the Investigating Officer. In spite of lengthy cross-examination of Muhammad Din P. W.
The defence has not been able to show either his enmity with the appellant or his relationship or interest in the complainant party to falsely implicate the appellant in this case. He belongs to a different community. The only criticism levelled against this witness by the learned defence counsel is that before the Committing Magistrate he had stated that the accused was produced by his father and recoveries made on the day he returned from the Mayo Hospital and this date does not tally with the date of actual recovery, namely, 14-3-1972. We have minutely examined his statement and find that he is a truthful and independent witness. There can be some confusion about the date when he actually returned from Mayo Hospital and he may have visited the hospital more than once. Anyhow, this fact alone is not sufficient to belie the recovery which is also supported by the Investigating Officer. It may be mentioned here that the fact of taking away the wrist-watch of the deceased by the appellant with its particulars is also mentioned in the F. I. R.
Which was lodged immediately after the occurrence. The same watch with the same particulars has been recovered from the person of the appellant at the time of his arrest. Similarly, bloodstained knife (Exh. P. 10) was recovered from him. At the time of the occurrence, the deceased was carrying a sum of Rs, 80.00 in cash in his pocket, The recovery of the money also stands established. This fact also supports the prosecution allegation that the appellant wanted to rob the deceased of his articles and the cash. Thus, the recovery of wrist-watch (Exh. P. I1) and the blood- stained knife (Exh. P. 10) as weapon of offence is proved beyond any doubt and this recovery serves a very strong and independent piece of corroboration and motive against the appellant. The medical evidence also corroborates the ocular account. The nature and location of the injuries found by the doctor on the person of the deceased at the time of his medical examination support the eye-witnesses.
8. The learned defence counsel has first tried to argue that the present appellant was not liable to be convicted for the murder of the deceased, but when confronted with the evidence available on the record, he tried to argue alternatively that the case falls under section 304, Part I, P. P. C. As it was a sudden quarrel between two young men who first grappled and then the appellant inflicted certain injuries to the deceased. We are unable to agree with him. After believing the ocular evidence coupled with the recoveries and motive, the offences under section 302/394, P. P. C.
Stands proved against the appellant. It was not a sudden quarrel. The appellant wanted to rob the deceased and he found that opportunity when he was passing through the street. In doing so, he not only inflicted injuries to the deceased but also succeeded in taking away the wrist-watch of the deceased with him. The mere fact that the deceased when attacked by the appellant ride to save himself by raising his hands, will not amount to grappling c. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that it is a clear case of murder and robbery and it does not fall under section 304, P. P. C.
9. The last contention raised on behalf of the appellant is regarding sentence. According to the learned defence counsel, the facts of the case do not justify the extreme penalty of death due to his tender age and previous conduct. At the time of his statement before the Committing Magistrate the age of the appellant is shown as 21 years, while before the trial Court it is 22 years.
According to the learned counsel at the time of the commission of the offence the age of the appellant would be about 20 years. After giving due consideration to this fact we do not consider that in the present circumstances of the case a young man of 20 years was entitled to a lesser penalty. The fact that the appellant is not a previous convict is no justification to award lesser penalty. Another circumstance urged by the learned defence counsel is that the deceased had only one grievous injury. However, we find that the injury given was on vital part of the body and was so dangerous that it proved fatal in spite of best medical aid. After taking into consideration the various circumstances, we feel that it is a fit case for normal penalty of death. There are no mitigating circumstances justifying the lesser penalty under section 302, P. P. C.
10. After hearing the counsel for the parties at length and going through the entire material available on the record, we are clearly of the view that the prosecution has established its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. He has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. We also maintain his convictions and sentences under section 302/394, P. P. C.
The sentence of death is confirmed. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No, 314 of 1974 fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
11. We have already believed the recovery of blood-stained knife (Exh. P. 10) from the appellant, which has been supported by Muhammad Din (P. W. 11) and A. S. I. Abdul Jabbar, Investigating Officer. Accordingly, we maintain the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and dismiss Criminal Appeal No, 336 of 1974.