' Saeed Ahmad (15 years) appellant was sent up to face the trial in case F.I.R. No,58, dated 17-4- 1990 registered under section 302, P. P.0 . At Police Station Kot Mubarik, District D.G. Khan.
2. Through judgment, dated 7-10-1991 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, D.G. Khan convicted the appellant under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs,5,000 and in default thereof to further undergo two years' R.I. He was also directed to pay Rs,10,000 as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To the legal heirs of the deceased or in default to the payment of said compensation 6 months' S.I.
3. Feeling aggrieved he has challenged the impugned judgment vide the present appeal. The unfortunate occurrence took place on 17-4-1990 at 8-00 a.m. Near the shop of one Noor Muhammad in the area of Adda Yaroo within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kot Mubarik wherein Haji dhulam Rasool aged 40 years succumbed to the injuries caused by the appellant and died at the spot. The place of occurrence being at a distance of three miles from the police station, Zulfiqar a cousin of the deceased (P.W.7) got his statement (Exh.P.C.) recorded at the police station which was recorded by Muhammad Anwar, Inspector/S.H.O. (P.W. 11) on 17-4-1990 at 9-20 a.m.
4. Briefly the facts of the case, as narrated in the F.I.R., are the appellant and the deceased were residing in neighbourhood in village Yaroo. They had good friendly relations with each other since about two years prior to the occurrence. About one year prior to the occurrence the deceased took Saeed Ahmad appellant to Saudi Arabia by bearing his expenses from his own pocket. Saeed Ahmad appellant developed friendly relations with someone else there. This annoyed the deceased. Due to this grudge the deceased cut the nose of the appellant in Saudi Arabia and came to his home from Saudi Arabia. The appellant remained in Saudi Arabia and when he came back the deceased went to Saudi Arabia. The appellant was bearing grudge on the ground of chopping off his nose. On the day of occurrence the deceased was coming to Adda Yaroo from his home, the complainant, Nazar Hussain and Ghulam Mustafa (P.Ws.) were present near the bridge at Adda Yaroo. When Haji Ghulam Rasool reached near the shop of Noor Muhammad, the appellant who was waylaying him near that shop, challenged him that he would teach him a lesson for chopping off his nose. The appellant fired a revolver shot which landed upon the chest of Ghulam Rasool within the view of the aforesaid P.Ws. He fell down. The appellant pulled out a Kati from Naifa of his Shalwar and chopped off the nose and lip of Ghulam Rasool. He also inflicted Kati blow upon his arm. When the aforesaid witnesses tried to apprehend the appellant, he extended threats of dire consequences and fled away with the weapons of offence. The complainant and the other P.Ws. Went towards Ghulam Rasool who succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by the Nazar Hussain (given up) and Ghulam Mustafa (P.W.8) apart from the complainant (P.W.7). The motive behind the occurrence was that Haji Ghulam Rasool chopped off nose of Saeed Ahmad in Saudi Arabia nearly one year prior to the occurrence. Due to that grudge the accused-appellant committed the murder of Ghulam Rasool. The complainant after leaving the dead body in the supervision of Nazar Hussain and Ghulam Mustafa (P.Ws.) went to the police station to report the occurrence.
5. On the arrival at the spot the Investigating Officer prepared injury statement (Exh.P.K.) and inquest report (Exh.P.L.) in respect of the dead body and despatched the same for post-mortem examination while he secured bloodstained earth from the place of occurrence which was made into a sealed parcel and taken in possession vide recovery memo. (Exh.P.D.). He also secured one crime empty (Exh.P.5) from near the spot which was made into a sealed parcel and taken into possession vide recovery memo. (Exh.P.E.). Both these memos. Were attested by Ghulam Mustafa (P.W.8). Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhatti (P.W.11) and Nazar Hussain (P.W. Given up).
6. Dr. Umar Farooq Ahsan (P.W.9) on 17-4-1990 performed the autopsy on the dead body of Ghulam Rasool deceased and found the following injuries on his person:--
(1) A lacerated wound somewhat circular in appearance of 1-1/4 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m. On the front of the left side of the chest. 3-1/2" below and medial to the left nipple. (wound of entrance).
(2) An abraded wound of 1-1/4 c.m. x 3/4 c.m. Of circular appearance on the front of the left chest.
3-1/2" medial to the left nipple just above injury No, 1 .
(3) An incised wound of 5" x 3" (with all muscles, nerves, tendon etc. Were cut) going deep to the bone (Humrus) on the antero medial aspect of the right upper arm, 4" above the right elbow joint.
(4) A cut wound (incised) on the front of the face extending from the root of the nose and cutting the nose, 2-1/2" of the upper lip (about 3/4th of the total), 2" of tne right side of the lower lip, making the teeth and nasal bone naked. Cut flap of the nose was present.
' In his opinion the death was occurred due to shock and haemorrhage due to injury No,1 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The time between injuries and death was immediate while that between death and the post-mortem was six to ten hours. All the injuries were atne-mortem and were caused with fire-arm, blunt and sharp-edged weapons. Injury No,1 was stated to be fatal while the other injuries were simple in nature.
7. The accused was arrested on 24-4-1990 by Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhatti (P.W.11) from the canal Pull D.G. Khan. On his personal search revolver (Exh.P.6) was recovered from his person which was made into a sealed parcel and taken into possession vide recovery memo. (Exh.P.G.). On the same day while in police custody, the accused led to his residential room and got recovered blood- stained Kati (Exh.P.7), blood-stained shirt (Exh.P.8) and blood-stained Shalwar (Exh.P.9), which were made into sealed parcels separately and were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.P.H.
Memos Exh.P.G. And Exh.P.H. Were attested by Muhammad Sohail (P.W.10), Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhatti (P.W.11) and Muhammad Ishaq (given up P.W.). Reports of the Chemical Examiner (Exh.P.N.
And Exh.P.O.) and those of the Serologist (Exh.P.P. And Exh.P.Q.) were tendered in evidence. Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore (Exh.P.R.) was also placed on the record.
8. To prove the prosecution charge, eleven witnesses were produced. The accused was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. And he denied the prosecution case and pleaded that he has been involved because of enmity and he did not opt to make a statement as required by section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor did he adduce any defence evidence.
9. With the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State the entire evidence adduced at the time of trial has been perused and the record of the case has been minutely scrutinised and arguments of both the learned counsel also heard at length.
10. The motive in the present case is one which took place in Saudi Arabia, and thus, the deceased and the accused were the only persons to be aware of it though the prosecution has tried to establish it from the mouths of P.Ws. 7 and 8. The accused has categorically denied that his nose was ever chopped off by the deceased but the fact remains, even though P.Ws. 7 and 8 were never in Saudi Arabia yet their evidence coupled with the fact that the appellant is having this healed scar on the nose is a clear cut sign that some weapon was used on his nose while he was in Saudi Arabia. Since the accused has not come forth with any satisfactory plea explaining as to how he carries this healed scar on his nose, the only inference which can be drawn to believe is that whatever has been suggested by the P.Ws. As a motive is the only plausible conclusion and even though the accused may not admit it, yet the healed scar on his body speaks volumes of the incident which took place, and, thus, motive to the present occurrence stands proved and established beyond doubt.
11. As far as the ocular account is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out minor discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8 which do not hit or touch the root of the case.
Furthermore, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to establish any enmity for false implication of the appellant in the present case and though P.W.7 is stated to be a cousin of the deceased yet this relationship in absence of any other material is not sufficient to discard his evidence. The occurrence took place in his presence, in day time and thus identity of the appellant could not be a mistaken one. Therefore, there is nothing on the record to disbelieve the presence of these two witnesses. Their evidence is also corroborated by medical evidence and the evidence of recoveries of blood-stained Kati (Exh.P.7) and blood-stained clothes of the accused (Exhs.P.8 and P.9).
12. As far as the recovery of revolver (Exh.P.6) is concerned, though the crime empty has not been found to be wedded with the revolver (Exh.P.6) yet the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is that the weapon recovered from the appellant was in working condition and the fact remains that it was found from the person of the accused at the time of his arrest cannot exonerate him merely because the crime-empty was not found wedded with the weapon but the fact remains that the medical evidence does show that the deceased was carrying a fire-arm injury and that proved fatal in the instant case and the witnesses (P.Ws.7 and 8) state that the accused fired at the deceased. Hence, on all fours the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned, Trial Court has already considered his young age to be a mitigating circumstance for awarding lesser sentence and he has already been dealt with very leniently. The appeal being without force is dismissed; the conviction and sentences awarded to the appellant are maintained.
The appellant is, however, extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.