' 'RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---Waheed (16) son of Islamud Din, Saeed (23) son of Islamud Din and Islamud Din (45) son of Maseetay Khan, were tried for the murder of Muhammad Ashraf (30) son of Barkat Ali by Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Afghani, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot. The learned Judge convicted and sentenced Waheed on 30-4-1992 under section 302, P.P.C. To imprisonment for life plus a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default thereof to undergo two years' R.I. In case of recovery of fine, it was ordered that half of it, shall be paid as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To the legal heirs of the deceased. Saeed and Islamud Din, co-accused were, however, acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. The convict, Waheed has challenged his conviction and sentence by filing Cr. A. No,308 of 1991 before this Court while the State and the complainant Barkat Ali have instituted Cr. Rev. No,581 of 1990 and Cr. Rev. No,73 of 1991, respectively, for awarding death sentence to the convict. These matters shall be decided together by this judgment.
2. Shortly stated the facts are that Muhammad Ashraf (deceased) was present in the Bazar of village Gondal on 7-9-1988 at about 10-00 a.m. In the Bazar, some nomad women were collecting waste papers. Islamud Din (an acquitted accused) a contractor by profession, came there and demanded that the women should pay him the tax because he, being a contractor, was entitled to collect it as of right. Muhammad Ashraf (deceased) objected to it by saying that the poor women were just collecting the waste papers and that Islamud Din had no authority to ask them to pay the tax on the said collection. On this, both exchanged abuses. Islamud Din left the place by issuing threats that he would not leave Muhammad Ashraf alive. Muhammad Ashraf went to the Dera of Muhammad Sadiq at about 12-00 noon. Islamud Din and his sons while armed with Chhuris came at the spot. Barkat Ali, complainant had already come at the Dera of Muhammad Sadiq in order to summon his son Muhammad Ashraf. Islamud Din shouted and exhorted his sons to kill Muhammad Ashraf so that his murder could serve as an eye-opener to others. In consequence, Waheed (appellant) took out a Chhurri and injured Muhammad Ashraf by giving him powerful blow which landed on the left side of his armpit. Waheed wanted to give another blow but before he could do so, Muhammad Sadiq overpowered him and snatched the weapon from him. Saeed also wanted to use his weapon but it too was snatched by the complainant. On hearing the noise, several people of the locality reached the spot. The accused left the place while shouting. Muhammad Ashraf was lifted and brought to civil hospital, Sialkot on a vehicle in a precarious condition.
Ghulam Sarwar, S.I. (P.W.11) received the complaint (Exh.PG) from Barkat Ali complainant. Barkat Ali also produced vest P4 and shirt P5 of Muhammad Ashraf (deceased) before the police officer which were taken into possession vide memo Exh.PH. Muhammad Sadiq produced blood-stained Chhurri P6 before the police officer which he had snatched from Waheed. The weapon was taken into possession vide memo Exh.PJ. The Sub-Inspector prepared the formal F.I.R. (Exh.PG/1) on the basis of the complaint Exh.PG. Thereafter, the police officer went straight to the hospital. In the meantime, Muhammad Ashraf had already died. Inquest report (Exh.PQ) and injury statement (Exh.PR) of Muhammad Ashraf were prepared by him. The dead body was sent to the mortuary for its post-mortem examination through Muhammad Ishaq and Afzal Baig Constables. Spot was inspected by the Sub-Inspector on 8-9-1988. Blood-stained earth was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. PC. Last-worn clothes of the deceased, Trouser P1 produced by Afzal Baig Constable was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PA. The investigator arrested Waheed and Saeed accused on 14-9-1988. On instructions of the investigating officer, site plan Exh.PB and its duplicate Exh.PB/1 were prepared by Akhtar Naqqash Draftsman (P.W.5) on 12-9-1988.
' The reports of the Chemical Examiner (Exh.PT and Exh.PT/1) and Serologist (Exh.PU and Exh.PU/1) were positive inasmuch as it was opined that the earth and Chhuri were stained with human blood.
3. Dr. Muhammad Shafi, Medical Officer School, Health Services Unit Uggoki (P.W.7) medically examined Muhammad Ashraf (injured) on 7-9-1988 at 1-15 p.m. And noted the following injury on him:--- "An incised wound 2-1/2 c.m. x 1 c.m. Depth not probed, on the lateral aspect of left side of chest in the posterior axillary line 10 c.m. Below the left axilla."
' After the death of Muhammad Ashraf, said doctor conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body on 8-9-1988 at about 10-30 a.m. In his opinion, the injury was grievous and dangerous to life. It was ante-mortem and was caused by a sharp-edged weapon. The doctor opined that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time between infliction of injury and death was 2 to 6 hours and between death and post-mortem examination was 20 to 30 hours.
4. Barkat Ali (P.W.8) and Muhammad Sadiq (P.W.9) gave an eyewitness account. The appellant denied the allegations in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. He pleaded his innocence and deposed that he had been falsely implicated in the case. He disclosed that Muhammad Ashraf (deceased) tried to outrage the modesty of a nomad woman and that some unknown people belonging to the tribe of the girl caused his death by stabbing him. He claimed that the incident was not witnessed by any body. His plea was that he had been involved in the case on account of enmity. Muhammad Hussain (D.W.1), Mirza Muhammad Aslam Baig (D.W.2), Ali Akbar (D.W.3), Abdul Rashid Nagra (D.W.4) were produced by the accused in their defence. The accused Islamud Din, Waheed and Saeed also made statements on oath as D.Ws. 5 to 7. The defence plea was that two nomad women were present in the Bazar. They were collecting waste papers. Muhammad Ashraf (deceased) caught hold of one of them by her arm. She hurled abuses upon Muhammad Ashraf.
Thereafter, two unknown persons came and gave a Chhurri blow to Muhammad Ashraf. After commission of the crime, they ran away.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. According to him, disinterested and truthful witnesses were available but were not produced by the prosecution in support of its case. He argues that Barkat Ali (complainant) father of the deceased in an interested witness and his evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated by some other unimpeachable evidence. The learned counsel maintains that no evidence was produced to corroborate the evidence of the complainant. He submits that Muhammad Sadiq (P.W.9) did not support the prosecution case in any manner whatsoever. The learned counsel for the complainant and the State argue that conviction was rightly registered against the appellant and that he was liable to be given capital punishment for the cold blooded murder of Muhammad Ashraf in a broad daylight. According to them, the young age of the convict could not be a valid ground for awarding him a lesser punishment in a case like this.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also read the whole record with utmost care. We do not see any reasons to disbelieve the evidence of Barkat Ali (P.W.8). He has fully supported the case of the prosecution. According to him, Waheed inflicted Chhuri blow which landed on the armpit of Muhammad Ashraf. The deposition of Barkat Ali P.W.8) cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is father of the deceased. His presence at the spot is established beyond doubt inasmuch as he lifted Muhammad Ashraf in an injured condition and brought him to the Civil Hospital, Sialkot for his treatment without losing any time. The distance of police station from the place of occurrence was 14 K.M. And if, assuming for the sake of arguments and not conceding that he was not present at the time of occurrence, the injured Muhammad Ashraf could not have been brought to the hospital in such a short time of about five hours. This fact would demonstrate beyond doubt that Barkat Ali P.W. Was present and saw the occurrence. Admittedly, there existed no enmity between the appellant and the deceased or the complainant. This being so, there were no earthly reasons for the complainant to falsely rope in the appellant in the murder case of his son. It was a daylight occurrence. We have been persuaded to our satisfaction to believe the evidence of Barkat Ali in the given circumstances. The weapon of offence (Chhuri P6) which was snatched by Muhammad Sadiq P.W. And produced before the investigator was found to be stained with human blood. It lends corroboration to the evidence of Barkat Ali (P.W.8). The evidence of Dr. Muhammad Shafique (P.W.7) was also in line with testimony of eye-witnesses. Next argument of the learned counsel is that Muhammad Sadiq, another eye-witness did not support the prosecution case. The said witness was declared hostile by the prosecutor. He was subjected to cross-examination. His evidence would pale into insignificance in the presence of confidence inspiring and truthful deposition of Barkat Ali P.W. It is not necessary that all the witnesses must support the version of the prosecution. The quality of evidence produced by the prosecution in support of its case is always more important than the number of witnesses. We are, therefore, convinced to hold that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. The reasons, given by the learned trial Judge in not giving capital punishment to the appellant are, indeed convincing. They are really warranted on the facts and circumstances of this case. The argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that the sentence of the appellant may be enhanced from imprisonment for life to death did not convince us. We are of the view, that the tender or the extreme old age of the offender may provide a valid ground for awarding a lesser punishment. The evidence available in this case demonstrates that the appellant was less than 16 years when he committed the offence. He might have acted under the influence of his elders. That being so, we uphold the conviction and sentence E already awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court and in consequence, dismiss his appeal.
However, he will be given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. For the above reasons, the revisions filed by the State (Cr. Rev. No,581 of 1990) and the complainant (Cr. Rev. No,73 of 1991) are dismissed.