' Ghulam Abbas son of Niaz Muhammad, caste Khokhar, resident of Bhatta No. 2, Arifwala, was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal under section 302, P. P. C. For having committed the murder of Muhammad Ibrahim deceased. By judgment dated 22nd October 1976, he was convicted under section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to ten years' R. I. And a fine of Rs. 2,000 or in default in the payment thereof to suffer further R. I. For eight months. The fine, if realised, was ordered to be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation. The convict has appealed.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 7th November 1975 at about 6-30 p.m. Fateh Mohammad complainant was standing in front of his house when Ghulam Abbas appellant passed by him singing an obscene song. Muhammad Ibrahim deceased (son of Fateh Muhammad) told the appellant that he had previously asked him on so many occasions not to sing obscene songs upon which the appellant abused him. The deceased also abused in return.
Meanwhile Ghulam Muhammad (not produced), Bagh Ali and Muhammad Ramzan P. Ws. Also arrived there on hearing the alarm. The accused suddenly whipped out a knife from the fold of his Shalwar and stabbed the deceased in the left side of the chest and while he was pulling out the knife it also injured the nose of the deceased. On receiving the injuries, the deceased fell to the ground and the appellant ran away towards the northern side. The eye-witnesses ran after him to some distance but he threatened them with the knife and made good his escape. The eye- witnesses then returned to the spot and found that the deceased had expired. Leaving Ghulam Muhammad (not produced), Muhammad Ramzan and Bagh All P. Ws. With the dead body, Fateh Muhammad complainant went to Police Station Arifwala, situate at a distance of two furlongs from the spot, and reported the occurrence to Muhammad Bashir A. S. At 6-40 p. m. Vide F. I. R. Exh. P. A.
3. After recording the F. I. R. Muhammad Bashir A. S. I. Reached the spot and prepared the injury- statement Exh. P. G. And inquest-report Exh. P. F. Of the dead body and despatched it to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. He recorded the statements of Bagh Ali. Muhammad Ramzan and Ghulam Muhammad under section 161, Cr. P. C. Then he alongwith Muhammad Siddiq (not produced) and Abdul Karim P. W. Set out in search for the accused and found him sitting on the western platform of Arifwala Railway Station at 11-15 p.m. On the same day. On seeing the A. S. I.
The appellant jumped down the railway line and sustained minor injuries. The A. S. I. Arrested him and prepared his injury-statement Exh. P. D/1. He searched his person and recovered blood-stained knife Exh. P. 1 from the fold of his shalwar and made it into a sealed parcel vide memo. Exh. P. B. After the investigation, the accused was challaned.
4. On 8-11-1975 at 11 a.m. Dr. Mushtaq Ahmad, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Arifwala, conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Muhammad Ibrahim and found the following injuries on it :-
(1) A stab wound 1' x 1/4" X penetrating into the chest cavity on the lower part of left side of front of chest close to sternum, 4" below the nipple, transverse in direction.
(2) An incised wound 1' x 1 r S k. On the left side of nose.
' Eleventh left rib and diaphragm were cut under injury No. 1 and the right ventricle of heart was cut through and through. In the opinion of the doctor, death was due to shock, haemorrhage and injury to the heart. Injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
' On the same day the same doctor examined Ghulam Abbas appellant and found an abrasion 2' x r on the left side of face and another below the chin.
5. In support of its case the prosecution examined three eye-witnesses, namely, Fateh Muhammad, Bagh Ali and Muhammad Ramzan, and it also relied on the recovery of blood-stained knife from the appellant.
6. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. He admitted that he had passed through the street and that the deceased and his father Fateh Muhammad were present outside their house. V when asked to explain his injuries he stated that he suffered two injuries du to beating by the Police.
When asked why he was implicated in this :ase, he made the following statement :- "Muhammad Ibrahim deceased abused 'Ay brother Ghulam Mushtaq. I objected to it. Muhammad Ibrahirm told me not to pass through this street. I told him that I shall not pass through their street. I have been involved in this case due to enmity."
' He further stated that the deceased abused him and he abused the deceased in return and went to his house from where he was arrested by the Police at 7 p.m. He did not produce any evidence in his defence. #TBS (1) PLD 1978 Kar. 560 #TBE
7. The learned trial Judge believed the prosecution evidence against the appellant and observed that Exception IV to section 300, P. P. C., was attracted to the facts of this case. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the prosecution version of the occurrence but submits that on the facts stated the offence falls under section 326, P. P. C. And in the circumstances of the case the sentence of ten years' R. I. Is ex cessive.
9. Fateh Muhammad, Sain Bagh Ali and Muhammad Ramzan P. Ws. Have supported the prosecution version as detailed in the earlier portion of this judgment and I need not recapitulate their statements here. Fateh Muhammad P. W. Is the father of the deceased, Muhammad Ramzan is from his brotherhood and Sain Bagh Ali is not related to him. The occurrence took place in the street at a distance of five or six karams from the house of the deceased. The house of Sain Bagh Ali P. W. Is close to the place of occurrence and that of Muhammad Ramzan P. W. Is at a distance of 5/6 karams from there. The mere fact that Fateh Muhammad P. W. Is relat to the deceased is no ground to discard his evidence as worthless. All th eye-witnesses being the residents of the same street are very natural witnesses of the occurrence. The occurrence took place at 6-30 p.m. And the F. I. R. Was lodged within ten minutes at the police station at a distance of tw furlongs. All the necessary details, including the name of the accused, the weapon used by him, the names of the eye-witnesses and the motive etc., are clearly mentioned in the F. I. R. The appellant was arrested on the same day at 11-30 p.m. From Railway Station, Arifwala, and a blood-staine knife was recovered from his possession. It is a case of single accused. Therefore, it is impossible to believe that the real culprit was let off and th appellant was substituted for him. I am, therefore, satisfied that it was th appellant who caused injury to the deceased which resulted in his death.
' Relying on Masood-ul-Hasan v. State (1), the learned counsel for the appellant contends that in the aforesaid case on identical facts the conviction of the accused was altered from section 302 to section 326, P. P. C. And sentence was reduced to sever! Years' R.
1. The argument is misconceived. In that case the injury was on the thigh which is not a vital part of the body while in the present case it was on a vital part, i. e. The chest, therefore, the ruling cited by the learned counsel has no application to the facts of the instant case.
10. After going through the evidence on record, I am satisfied that their appellant was rightly convicted under section 304 (Part I) of the Pakistan B Penal Code. The sentence awarded to him is also appropriate and calls to no interference.
11. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any substance in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.