RAJA MUHAMMAD SABIR, J.- This appeal has been preferred by appellant Muhammad Khalid through jail against the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Gujranwala dated 11.6.1995, whereby he was convicted under Section 302-C PPC and sentenced to 20 years, R.I. For causing death of Muhammad Nafees. He was also extended benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. Crl.
Revision No. 266/95 has also been find by Muhammad Shafique complainant for enhancement of sentence of the convict from 20 years, R.I. To death. This judgment will dispose of both these matters together.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a case under Section 302 PPC was registered at the instance of Muhammad Shafique complainant vide F.I.R. No. 358 dated 17.8.1992 at Police Station Satellite Town Gujranwala. It was alleged in the FIR (Ex.PD) that 3/4 days earlier an altercation took place between brother of the complainant Muhammad Nafees and Muhammad Khalid but the same was avoided with the intervention of the people of the locality, but Muhammad Khalid extended threats to Muhammad Nafees that he would not leave him alive. On 17.8.1992 at about 8.00 P.M. The complainant alongwith Ahmad Naeem Anjum and Intizar Javed were standing in the street in front of house of Ahmad Naeem Anjum and talking' with each other. Muhammad Nafees came there after having purchases sugar from the shop and meanwhile appellant came from his house. He took out a chhuri from his Nefa and gave seven blows to Muhammad Nafees which landed on his abdomen, breast, and back. The complainant tried to catch the accused but he fled away with his weapon. On receipt of the injuries Muhammad Nafees fell down in the street. He was removed to Civil Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries.
3. The case was investigated by Muhammad Saleem Butt Inspector (PW10). On receipt of information he went to Civil Hospital Gujranwala alongwith complainant Muhammad Shafique. He prepared the injury statement Ex.PG and Inquest Report Ex.PH of the deceased. He entrusted the dead body to Muhammad Yaqoob F.C. 2012 (PW-1) for post-mortem examination. He visited the spot and prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PJ. The Investigating Officer secured the blood stained earth from the spot vide Memo Ex.PC. He recorded the statements of P.Ws. On 18.8.1992 Muhammad Yaqoob FC produced before him shirt P-1, Shalwar P-2, last worn blood-stained clothes of the deceased which were taken into possession vide Memo Ex.PA. On 23.8.1992, he arrested the accused from Canal Bridge Chhicharwali. While in his custody the accused led to the recovery of chhuri from underneath iron-chest lying in a room of his house, which was taken into possession in a sealed parcel vide memo Ex.PF. He also prepared rough sketch Ex.PF/1 of the place recovery. Separate case under Arms Ordinance was also registered against the accused. He completed the investigation of the case and sent up the challan for his trial.
4. Dr. Muhammad Naseer Rana, S.M.O. P.W11 conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 18.8.1992 at 9.30 a.m. And found the following injuries:-
1. An incised wound 1 cm x .2 c.m. x scalp deep on the left side of forehead. 1 c.m. Above the medial end of left eye-brow.
2. An incised wound 1.8 c.m x 9 cm x muscle deep on front of right chest 3 cm above the right nipple 7 c.m from the anterior midline and 7 c.m. Below the clavial.
3. Ap incised wound 2.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x muscle deep on the outer side of right chest 5 c.m. Below and outer to right nipple and 12.5 c.m. Below the right axilla.
4. An incised wound 2.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x going deep on front of right epigastrium 2 c.m from the enter or midline and 2 c.m. Above the umbilicus.
5. An incised wound 1 c.m. x 5 c.m. x going deep on front of left epigastrium 5 c.m., from the anterior midline and 9 c.m. Above umbilicus.
An incised wound 1 c.m. x .5 c.m. x skin deep on front of left epigastrium upper and outer part 2.5 c.m. Above the injury No. 5.
7. An incised wound 2.5 c.m. 1 c.m. x going deep on front of left epigastrium upper and outer part 1.5.c.m. Above injury No. 6.
8. An incised wound 2.4 c.m. x 1 c.m. x going deep on the outer side of left chest, lower part 20 c.m.
Below the left axilla and 15 c.m. Below the left nipple.
9. An incised wound 3.5 c.m. x .5 c.m. x skin deep on the postro lateral side of left hand.
10. A scratch 1.5 c.m. x .1 c.m. On the left side of bridge of nose, middle part.
11. An incised wound 2-5 c.m. x 1.3 c.m. x going deep on the posterio- lateral side of left chest 9.5 c.m. Below the posterolateral border of. Left axilla.
12. An incised wound. 5 c.m. x .3 c.m. Skin deep on the outer side of left upper arm, upper part continuous with a tail of 2.5 c.m. x .1 c.m. x skin deep.
In the opinion of the Doctor, all the injuries were ante-mortem and were caused by some sharp edged weapon. The death occurred on account of haemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries No. 4, 5, 7, 8 and 11, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature collectively as well as individually. The time between injuries and death was about 1 1/2 hours and between death and post-mortem was about 12 hours.
5. Ocular account of the occurrence was furnished by Muhammad Shafique PW-3 and Ahmad Naeem Anjum PW-4, who supported the prosecution case as narrated in the F.I.R, The prosecution also tendered in evidence reports of Chemical Examiner and Serologists, Ex.PL, PM and PN, according to which the blood stained earth and Churri were found stained with human blood.
6. The appellant while making his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C, denied the charge and pleaded his innocence. He stated that he has been falsely involved in the case by the complainant in order to grab the property jointly owned by complainant and his father, who is mentally derained. However, he did not produce any evidence in his defence.
7. Learned Trial Judge believed the prosecution evidence and convicted the appellant under Section 302(c) PPC and sentenced him to twenty years, R.I. As stated above.
8. Mr. Masood Mirza, learned counsel for the appellant contends that learned Tial Judge has not completely believed evidence of eye-witnesses PW. 3 and PW4 and as such there was no justification with him to convict him under Section 302(c). He further submits that the appellant has been involved in the case falsely by the complainant in order to deprive him from the property of his father, who is suffering from mental ailment. The prosecution evidence is not trust-worthy, therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
9. Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand submits that this is a case of single accused. Occurrence has taken place at 8.00 p.m. Identification of the accused could not be doubted. The complainant and accused are closely related and there was no darkness at time of occurrence. He further submits that the prosecution established the case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt, therefore, instead of convicting him under Section 302(c) PPC he should have been convicted under Section 302-A PPC. Learned State counsel has also supported the submissions of the learned counsel for the complainant.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with their assistance.
11. The occurrence has taken place at 8.00 p.m. While the F.I.R, was lodged promptly at 9.50 sameday although Police Station is situated at a distance . Of 2 KMs from the place of occurrence.
The deceased and appellant were related to each other. Similarly complainant (PW-3) is brother of the deceased and paternal cousin of the appellant. The complainant stated that he alongwith PW- 4 Ahmad Naeem Anjum and Intizar Javed was standing in front of house of Ahmad Naeem x Anjum and talking with each other on the day of occurrence. At about 8.00 P.M. ' his brother Muhammad Nafees came there after fetching sugar from the shop and meanwhile appellant reached there and after taking out chhuri from his Nefa caused seven blows on his abdomen, chest and back. He was removed to the hospital were he succumbed to the injuries. Ahmad Naeem Anjum PW-4 has supported the statement of PW-3. The statements of PW-3 and PW-4 is supported by the medical evidence and recovery. PW-4 is a disinterested witness having no connection with either side.
Three-for days prior to occurrence deceased and appellant quarrelled with each other. The matter was patched up by the inhabitants of the locality. But while leaving the spot, the appellant issued threats to the deceased of dire consequences. After 3/4 days thereafter, he came at the spot while duly armed with chhuri and made short work of the deceased. PW-4 is residing near the place of occurrence. He is the only witness having no relationship with the deceased. His deposition is free from any valid exception. He is not inimical towards the accused nor he has soft comer for he deceased. PW-3 although brother of the deceased but , mere relationship is no ground for discarding his evidence when it is supported by all attending circumstances and other cogent evidence on the record. His statement is fully supported by statement of PW-4, medical evidence and recovery of weapon of crime. The prosecution evidence inspires confidence. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that he has been falsely implicated in the case is devoid of any force. There is not even a suggestion to indicate that instead of appellant any one else has murdered Muhammad Nafees deceased. Keeping in view the entire prosecution evidence, ocular account, medical evidence and evidence of recovery, 1 hold that the prosecution has proved the guilt against the appellant and he was rightly convicted and sentenced under Section 320(c) PPC by the learned Trial Judge.
12. I have not been impressed by the contention of the learned counsel for complainant that instead of conviction under Section 302(c) PPC the appellant should have been convicted under Section 302(a) and sentenced to death as qisas. There is no valid ground to alter the conviction of the appellant from Section 302(c) to 302(a)PPC. The learned Trial Judge has considered the demeanour and status of the PW-3 and PW-4 while awarding sentence to the accused under Section 302(c) PPC which is amply justified on the facts and circumstances of the case and does not call for any interference by this Court.
13. For the fore-going reasons, the appeal as well the revision are dismissed.