' MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.--- This appeal by Muhammad Amin alias Manna appellant is directed against the judgment of the learned Special Court for Speedy trials, Gujranwala, whereby he was convicted under sections 302 and 452 of the P.P.C. And sentenced to death as Tazir for Qatl-iAmd and R.I. For one year under section 452, P.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 2-2-1992 at 10-00 a.m. Shaukat P.W.10 was present in his house situated in Mohallah Mandi Loharan when he heard the shrieks of Mst. Surayia (wife of Muhammad Din) from the adjacent house. He immediately reached there and saw the appellant giving Chhuri blows to Mst. Surayia. In the meantime Tariq Butt P.W. (given up) also reached the spot. On seeing Shaukat and Tariq the appellant took to his heels taking the Chhuri with him. Mst. Surayia came out of the house in injured condition raising hue and cry and fell down in the lane. Many other persons including Shahzad P.W. And Muhammad Din complainant who was informed about the occurrence at his shop reached the spot. Mst. Surayia told the complainant in the presence of all that Muhammad Amin son of Habib Ullah had given her Chhuri blows.
Muhammad Din complainant immediately removed her to Civil Hospital where she succumbed to her injuries soon after. Muhammad Din made a written complaint Exh.P.G. Before the S.H.O. Police Station, City Pasrur on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Exh.P.H. Was recorded at 11-45 a.m.
2. Muhammad Iqbal Sub-Inspector investigated the case. He reached T.H.Q. Hospital, Pasrur at 12- 15 noon and after preparing necessary documents despatched the dead body to mortuary for post-mortem examination. Thereafter he reached the spot and secured some blood-stained scrapping from the floor of the house of occurrence and made the same into a sealed parcel vide memo. Exh.P.D. He received secret information about the pronounce of the appellant at Pasrur- Narowal Chowk and arrested him from there. He removed blood-stained Shirt P.6, Shalwar P.7 from the person of the appellant and made them into a sealed parcel vide memo. Exh.P.F. The appellant, while in custody, made a disclosure that he could lead to the recovery of the Chhuri and consequently led the police party to his house in Mohallah Khokharan, Pasrur, and got recovered blood-stained Chhuri P.5 which was made into a sealed parcel vide memo. Exh.P.E. After the usual investigation he was challaned.
4. In support of its case the prosecution examined 12 witnesses in all and its main stay was the ocular account furnished by Shaukat P.W.10. Prosecution also relied on the evidence relating to recovery of blood-stained Chhuri and oral dying declaration made by the deceased before her husband Muhammad Din, Shaukat P.W.10 and Shahzad P.W.11.
5. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution allegation against him. When asked why this case, he made the following statement:- "The witnesses are related with each other. We have a dispute of ancestral house with the complainant Muhammad Din. A quarrel took place so many times over the above said house between us and Muhammad Din complainant prior to this occurrence. Muhammad Din complainant and P.Ws. Are inimical to me and to my family so they have planted this case against me."
' He also made statement on oath under section 340(2) of the Cr.P.C. Wherein he, inter alia, stated:- - "Muhammad Din complainant had strained relations with his wife Mst. Surayia Bibi deceased. They used to quarrel with each other for the adoption of their sons. Muhammad Din himself killed his wife. Muhammad Din is also known as Manna while my name is also Manna. The complainant after killing his wife ran away. The police was searching Muhammad Din complainant alias Manna and when they enquired from Rashid, the brother of the complainant he pointed out me as Manna to save his brother."
' He examined Muhammad Amin son of Abdul Ghani a defence witness who stated that the appellant was arrested on 3-2-1992 from his house and taken to the police post. The witness further stated that he alongwith 2/3 other persons accompanied the father of the appellant to the police post to enquire as to why the appellant was arrested. The police instead of telling the reason for arrest asked them to leave the police post.
6. Relying on the prosecution evidence the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has half-heartedly argued that the evidence relating to dying declaration is discrepant and recoveries are fake, therefore, the uncorroborated solitary statement of Shaukat P.W. Was not sufficient to warrant the conviction.
' The learned counsel for the State, however, supported the impugned judgment.
8. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar in the light of evidence available on the record. There is only one eye-witness of the occurrence namely Shaukat P.W.10 who stated that his house was contiguous to the house of the deceased; on the fateful day on hearing shrieks from the house of the complainant he entered the said house and saw the appellant giving Chhuri blow to Mst. Surrayia Bibi deceased. In the meantime Tariq Butt P.W. (given up) also came there. The appellant thereupon ran away passing near them taking the Chhuri with him. Mst. Surrayia came in the lane raising hue and cry and fell down there. Many other persons of the locality including Muhammad Din complainant reached the spot on learning about the occurrence. Mst. Surrayia told her husband Muhammad Din complainant that Muhammad Amin had inflicted Chhuri blows on her. In cross-examination it was suggested that he had strained relation with the accused but he denied the suggestion and stated that he had cordial relations with the family of the accused.
The appellant while making statement on oath under section 340(2) of the Cr.P.C. Admitted that he had no enmity with Shaukat P.W. And that only one house intervened between the house of Shaukat and Muhammad Din A complainant. It is, therefore, fully proved that Shaukat P.W. Is a disinterested and very natural witness of the occurrence. In the circumstances there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve him. We have noted that this witness stated that on receiving the injuries inside the house the deceased came out running raising hue and cry and fell down in the lane whereas the statement of Muhammad Din complainant leaves the impression that when he reached the spot Mst. Surrayia deceased was sitting in the house in injured condition. The learned counsel pointed out this discrepancy to contend that Shaukat P.W. Was not a reliable witness.
Suffice it to say that the prosecution was not to gain anything by claiming or suppressing that Mst.
Surrayia had fallen in the lane.
9. Muhammad Din complainant, Shaukat and Shahzad P.Ws. Are unanimous that on the arrival of the complainant the deceased who was lying injured had informed him that the appellant had given her Chhuri blows. During arguments it was pointed out that according to the complainant, deceased had told that the appellant had come to extract money and had demanded Rs,500 from her but she refused to oblige him upon which hearted giving her Chhuri blows whereas Shaukat P.W. Had stated that she did not disclose the reason for the attack on her. This discrepancy too does not in any way impair the evidence relating to dying declaration. Shaukat P.W. Had in fact stated that she did not disclose the reason within his hearing. Muhammad Shahzad who is also a witness to the oral dying declaration has supported the complainant version saying that the deceased had told him (the complainant) that the appellant had come to commit theft and on her resistance had caused injuries with a Chhuri. The appellant in his statement under section 340(2) of the Cr.P.C. Admitted that he had no enmity with Shahzad P.W. Either. The statement of the doctor that he was not in a position to contradict the suggestion that Mst. Surrayia had become unconscious at once after receiving the injuries cannot outweigh the reliable evidence furnished by Muhammad Din complainant, Shaukat and Shahzad P.Ws. That she remained in senses after the occurrence and told the complainant that the appellant had given her Chhuri blows. According to the same doctor the probable time between injuries and death was about one hour and in that view of the matter the statement of the doctor that he was not in a position to contradict the said suggestion is of no consequence.
10. The recovery of blood-stained Chhuri at the instance of the appellant and that of blood-stained clothes from his person were supported by Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Iqbal Investigating Officer. The appellant in his aforesaid statement admitted that he had no enmity with Muhammad Aslam P.W. Either. In that view of the matter the evidence of Muhammad Aslam can safely be accepted.
11. It is the case of a single accused. The occurrence took place in the broad daylight. The appellant was previously known to the deceased and Shaukat P.W., being a person of their Bradari. There was, therefore, no possibility of mistaken identification. It is impossible to believe that the real culprit was let off and the appellant falsely implicated by Shaukat P.W. Who on appellant's own showing had no enmity with him.
12. The plea taken by the appellant in his statement under section 340(2) of the Cr.P.C. Make an inter reading. He stated:-- "Muhammad Din complainant had strained relations with his wife Mst. Surrayia Bibi deceased. They used to quarrel with each other for the adoption of their sons. Muhammad Din himself killed his wife. Muhammad Din is also known as Manna while my name is also Manna. The complainant after killing his wife ran away. The police was searching Muhammad Din complainant alias Manna and when they enquired from Rashid, the brother of the complainant he pointed out me as Manna to save his brother."
The plea is too absurd to deserve any comments. There is overwhelming evidence on the record that the complainant rushed to the spot on hearing about the occurrence, took his injured wife to the hospital, went to the police station for the registration of the case and remained associated with the investigation throughout. The defence plea was rightly rejected by the Courts below.
13. The learned counsel lastly pleaded for lesser sentence on the ground that the appellant was below 16 years of age at the time of occurrence. In his statement under section 342 of the Cr.P.C. He gave his age as 10 years but there is a note of the learned trial Judge that by appearance he was
18. In his statement recorded on oath he mentioned his age as "about 18 years". Young age per se is no ground for withholding the normal penalty. The appellant having (words missing) wounds to an innocent and defence less lady resulting her death does not deserve any clemency in the matter of sentence either.
' For the foregoing reasons there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.