' Hayat Ullah was tried in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mianwali in case F.I.R. No,151 dated 29-5-1993 for offence under section 302. P.P.C. Registered at Police Station City, Mianwali.
Hayat Ullah was convicted under section 302(b). P.P.C. And was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. He was also directed to pay a sum of Rs,50,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544A, Cr.P.C. Vide judgment dated 23-9-2000.
2. The case was registered on the statement of Muhammad Aslam Khan, deceased. It was narrated in the complaint Exh.P.E., that he was running a shop in Grain Market, Mianwali. Muhammad Akram son of Haji Muhammad Nawaz, Zia Ullah son of Haji Noor Khan were also running shops in the Grain Market. On 29-5-1993 at 1-45 p.m. Hayat Ullah armed with .12 bore gun came there and by raising Lalkara, fired a shot which hit on the abdomen, left arms, and left flank of Muhammad Aslam Khan, who fell down on the ground. The accused escaped from the spot after the incident. The injured was removed to the Civil Hospital, MianWali, where he died on 30-5-1993.
' The motive behind the incident was that Umar Hayat, brother of Muhammad Aslam Khan had committed the murder of uncle of Hayat Ullah Khan and the accused committed the offence in that background.
3. In the subsequent investigation conducted, Hayat Ullah Khan accused was found guilty and was challaned to Court. Charge under section 302, P.P.C. Was framed against the accused;
4. Sultan Ahmad, A.S.-I. P.W.5 had formally recorded F.I.R. Exh: P.A./1.Dr. Muhammad Akhtar Pervez Khan P.W.12 had medically examined Muhammad Aslam Khan on 29-5-1993 at 2-30 p.m. And noted 13 injuries on his person.
5. Dr. Mehr Khan P.W.7 on 30-6-1993 had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Aslam Khan deceased. According to medical officer death, was due to haemorrhage and shock caused by Injury No,2 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante-mortem and were caused by tire-arm. Copy of post- mortem examination report Exh.P.G. Was tendered in evidence by the medical officer.
6. Muhammad Akram Khan P.W.10 and Zia Ullah P.W.11 supported the prosecution case as given in the F.I.R.
7. Allah Bakhsh, S.-I., P.W. 13 had given the details of investigation conducted by him. Ghulam Murtaza, Inspector P. W.14 had arrested Hayat Ullah accused and recovered gun Exh.P.3 and five live cartridges Exh.P 4/1-5 vide memo. Exh.P.F.
8. The accused in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Professed his innocence and pleaded his false implication in the case due to enmity.
9. Trial Court convicted the accused as stated above.
10. The convict appealed. Muhammad Khan, father of the deceased tiled criminal revision petition for enhancement of sentence awarded to the convict which was directed to be heard alongwith criminal appeal filed by the convict.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that appellant had no motive to commit the offence as it was established that Hayat Ullah had numerous kith and kin and they could have taken revenge of his murder, of their own and appellant was not required to vindicate the prestige and the honour of family in any manner. It was submitted that appellant was a labourer by profession and had shifted to Mianwali after their land was acquired for construction of Chashma Barrage and he was working for living in Karachi and knew nothing about the case and was made accused in the case in his absence. It was submitted that the manner in which he was arrested showed that case against him was fabricated. It was also submitted that the place of incident was situated close by the police station but matter was not immediately reported to police which indicated that case was registered after preliminary investigation and deliberation. It was also submitted that the deceased died on account of mismanagement of.His injury and appellant could not have been convicted under section 302, P.P.C. As was done by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand submitted that Muhammad Aslam Khan was injured in broad daylight when he was present at his shop in Grain Market and was rushed to hospital where his statement Exh.P.E. Was recorded and on the basis of that, criminal case was registered. It was submitted that it was a promptly registered F.I.R. And appellant was the sole accused who had committed the offence and this was a case in which maximum penalty of death should have been awarded to the convict.
12. I have heard the learned counsel and scrutinized the record with care. Criminal case was registered at the instance of Muhammad Aslam Khan, the injured, when he was admitted in the hospital. Allah Bakhsh, S.-1. P. W.13 had rushed to hospital where Muhammad Aslam Khan was taken and he recorded his statement Exh.P.E. Which was duly signed by Muhammad Aslam.
Muhammad Aslam later died. Statement of Muhammad Aslam Exh.P.E. Thereafter was treated as dying declaration by the trial Court. The facts and circumstances of the case further corroborate the narrative contained in the statement Exh.P.E. That statement does not suffer from any infirmity and could rightly be treated as dying declaration. The narrative contained in the F.I.R. Is further supported by Muhammad Akram P.W.10 and Zia Ullah P.W.11 and the medical evidence. The accused absconded after the occurrence and could be apprehended after 7 years of the incident.
That aspect of the matter lent further support to the prosecution case against the appellant. After assessm ent of record with care it is concluded that prosecution had affirmatively proved its case against the accused convict. He was rightly convicted by the trial Court.
' The incident was taken place as far as back 1993. Therefore, I am not inclined to consider the prayer being made by the complainant for enhancement of sentence.
13. The appeal as well as revision petition stand dismissed.