' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court arises from the facts that the occurrence which took place on 17-6-1985 at 9-30 a.m. Near the house of Abdul Sattar, Contractor in Saeed Park at a distance of one mile from Police Station Shadara, Lahore, Mubarak accused caught hold of Zahid alias Pappu deceased, Ijaz alias Chun/appellant inflicted Chhurri blow in the abdomen of Zahid alias Pappu, and Mubarak also removed Rs,10,000 of Zahid alias Pappu which had fallen on the ground during the occurrence. Arif and Zafar accused armed with revolver threatened the prosecution witnesses with dire consequences, in the presence of Daulat Masih, Prem Masih and Tufail Shah and many others. The accused then ran away from the spot. In the meantime, Muhammad Saleem P.W.8 came there. He took Zahid alias Pappu towards Mayo Hospital, Lahore but Zahid alias Pappu succumbed to the injuries on the way.
2. The motive allegedly was that on the same day, early in the morning, Ijaz Masih accused had struck his Rehri against the scooter of Zahid alias Pappu whereupon both quarrelled with each other. Some persons intervened and the matter was patched up. According to the medical evidence, the injury allegedly caused by Ijaz Masih with Chhurri has resulted in the death and the injury was sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. During the investigation, the appellant got recovered blood-stained Chhurri P.4 from his house on 28-6-1985 in the presence of Amanat Masih P.W.9 and Sabir Hussain S.I. P.W.15. Prosecution examined seventeen witnesses in all. Daulat Masih P.W.10, the paternal uncle of the deceased and Prem Masih P.W.11 the father of the deceased have given the ocular account of the occurrence. They have supported the prosecution case and the part allegedly played by Ijaz Masih and his co-accused in the occurrence. Muhammad Saleem (P.W.8) has supported the oral dying declaration allegedly made by Zahid alias Pappu before him. Amanat Masih P.W.9 and Sabir Hussain S.I. P.W.15 have supported the recovery of blood-stained Chhurri from the appellant. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Ijaz Masih admitted to have caused the death of the deceased but in exercise of right of self-defence of his person. He made statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. The four accused also produced Riaz Ahmed D.W.5, Muhammad Khurshid Khan D.W.6, Ramzan Masih Councillor D.W.7, Aftab Elexender Mughal D.W.8 in their defence.
3. Believing the prosecution case and the statement of the eye-witnesses partially, the trial Court acquitted the co-accused namely, Mubarak, Arif and Zafar but convicted the appellant Ijaz Masih alias Chun under section 302, P.P.C. On 5-10-1986 and sentenced him to death and a fine of Rs,2,000 or one year's R.I. In default. He was directed to pay Rs,3,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased or six months' R.I. In default. The appeal filed by Ijaz Masih was dismissed by the Federal Shariat Court on 1-3-1992 with the modification that the sentence of death was altered to imprisonment for life and the benefit of provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to him. The sentences of fine and compensation were maintained. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a petition for leave to appeal before this Court which was granted on 27-4-1994.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended. That the trial Court has disbelieved the eye- witnesses to the extent of three co-accused, hence no conviction could be based on the evidence of the same eye-witnesses; that the Federal Shariat Court has also not believed the eye-witnesses and after believing the statement of the accused as a whole has upheld the conviction under section 302, P.P.C. But altered the sentence from death to life imprisonment. Learned counsel was of the view that the statement of the accused appellant if accepted in toto, he could not have been convicted under section 302, P.P.C. As a case of complete right of defence of person was/is made out from his statement. Learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment. ,
5. We have considered the arguments addressed by the counsel for the parties. We do not agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. We are of the view that the statement made by the accused appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. And also under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Do not make out a case of complete right of self-defence of person extending to the causing of the death of the deceased. The statements made by the accused may be reproduced advantageously:-- "(I) Under section 342, Cr.P.C.: ' I have been falsely implicated in this case by the prosecution witnesses on account of enmity.
Zahid Masih deceased was inimical towards me and my family due to the reason that one day prior to the occurrence my brother Mubarik Masih accused had refused to appear as a witness in an abduction case of Zahida Parveen the sister of Zahid alias Pappu. On that day Zahid alias Puppu gave threats to my brother Mubrik Masih and stated in open words that he will kill him and other members of his family. On the day of occurrence Zahid alias Pappu came to my fruit Rehri and in order to provoke collided his scooter against my "Rehri" and started abusing me. I also abused him in retaliation. He all of a sudden took out a dagger which he was keeping with him in order to murder our family and tried to inflict the injury upon my person. I tried to snatch the dagger from him. We grappled with each other and I also picked up a small "Chhurri" which was lying on my fruit "Rehri" and in self-defence gave a single blow to Zahid Masih deceased. No other person was present when this occurrence took place. The witnesses have made their statements against me due to enmity. The motive which has been set up in the case is absolutely false. I produce in my defence a photostat copy of the statements of Daulat Masih and Javed Masih recorded in a case F.I.R. No,115/85 under section 324, P.P.C. P.S. Shandara in which these two witnesses had supported the case of Mubarik Masih. This copy is marked 'A'.
(II) Under section 340 (2) Cr.P.C.: ' I am innocent in this case. At the time of occurrence on 17-6-1985 Daulat Masih P.W. Prem Masih, Aziz P.W., Tufail Shah and Muhammad Saleem were not present at the place of occurrence. A false motive has been created by the prosecution witnesses for my involvement in this case. At the time of occurrence none of the three accused in this case was present. My brother Mubarik Masih co- accused was a prosecution witness in the abduction case of Mst. Zahida sister of Zahid Masih deceased. On the day of occurrence I was going at a distance of about 2 furlongs from my house alongwith my fruit "Rehri". At that time Zahid Masih deceased hit his scooter against my "Rehri" and all the fruit fell on the ground. We exchanged abuses and grappled with each other. Zahid Masih deceased took out a "Chhurri" and wanted to attack me with it. In order to save myself I picked up my "Chhurri" from my "Rehri" and gave a single blow to Zahid Masih in self-defence. My father is old and sick and my brother Mubarik Masih has been involved in this case due to enmity."
6. From the plain reading of the aforesaid statements it is crystal clear that Ijaz Masih appellant had not received any injury during the occurrence. The dagger with which the deceased allegedly attempted to cause injury to the appellant was not found on the spot. The injury found on the person of the deceased does not seem to have been inflicted by a small Chhurri as stated in his confessional statement. For all these reasons, we are convinced that if the statements of the accused accepted as a whole, it cannot be said that no case punishable under section 302, P.P.C.
Was made out against him. The impugned judgment is unexceptional. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.