' This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9-4-2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhelum whereby he convicted the appellants under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced them to life imprisonment as Tazir. The appellants were also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. But Imran Iqbal accused was acquitted in the caseF.I.R. No.186 dated 30-9-2000 registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Civil Lines, Jhelum.
2. The allegation against the accused is that they on 28-9-2000 at about 7 p.m. In the area of Mohallah Baba Mehdi Shah, Jhelum in a premeditated manner, caused injuries at the person of Khuram Shahzad, who expired subsequently and - thus committed his intentional murder.
3. The Investigating Officer after completing of investigation submitted the challan before the trial Court. A charge under section 302/34, P.P.C. Was framed against the accused. They denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution produced 13 witnesses. Statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was recorded where the accused-appellants denied the charge. They also did not produce defence evidence. Only Jawad accused produce evidence in his defence.
4. Dr. Shahzad Mian Medical Officer conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased and found various injuries on the person of the deceased. In his opinion death was occurred due to head injury which led to cause fracture of skull bone and rupture of brain vessel which led to excessive blood loss and death.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends, that the eyewitnesses were closely related to the deceased; the death was not direct result of the injuries attribute to the appellants rather the same was caused due to negligent treatment and due to lack of post operative care and that the evidence has not been appreciated in its true perspective.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant as well as the State supported the judgment of the learned trial Court and submitted that the eye-witnesses account was furnished by the eye- witnesses, whose presence cannot be doubted at the spot. The F.I.R. Was lodged with promptitude supporting the prosecution case. The eyewitnesses furnished the ocular account, who are the natural witnesses of the circumstances. The medical evidence corroborates the ocular account and the accused-appellants had a motive to commit the offence.
7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the entire evidence available on record.
8. Abdul Qayyum appeared as P.W.10 while Abdul Jalil appeared as P.W.
11. Both eye-witnesses of the occurrence deposed that on 28-9-2000 at about 7-00 p.m. They alongwith Muhammad Ashiq P.W. Not produced were sitting in his house and were busy in conversation. They came out of the house in the street and saw the deceased sitting at awall in front of the house. All the accused namely Jawad alias Joi, Ijaz Ahmed alias Jaji and Imran Iqbal armed with dandas came there. Javaid alias Joi appellant inflicted danda blow on the right side of head of the deceased followed by Ijaz alias Jaji which landed on left side of the head. On receipt of injuries the deceased fell down on the ground. Imran Iqbal accused caused a blow with danda on the right cheek of the deceased. Jawad appellant caused the kick blow which hit at his lips followed by Ijaz accused with a danda, blow which hit on his head above the left ear. Again Jawad appellant inflicted kick blow which hit on the lips of Khuram Shahzad. The accused after causing injuries on the person of deceased run away.
9. The motive behind the occurrence was stated to be a quarrel, between Jawad alias Joi and Khuram Shahzad appellant, three months before the occurrence. Khuram Shahzad was taken to the DHQ Hospital Jhelum. He was referred to Rawalpindi. On 1-10-2000 he expired in DHQ Hospital Rawalpindi. The prosecution witnesses were cross-examined at length. The case of the appellants is of a mere denial. The accused-appellants failed to gain anything in the cross-examination. P.W.
10 Abdul Qayyum has stated that Khuram Shahzad deceased working as electrician came to the house at 4-00 p.m. After his usual work. He stated that he remained some period of time in the house and thereafter left out within his view. Muhammad Jalil P.W. Statedly came to his house when Khuram Shahzad has already left. Abdul Jalil and Muhammad Ashiq came to the house of P.W.10 as they had to talk about marriage of his daughter. They lifted the deceased in injured condition and rushed him to the hospitals. He was suggested that the occurrence has taken place in the darkness. He denied the suggestion that the occurrence taken place in the dark night and he failed to identify Abdul Jalil. P.W. Was also cross-examined at length. It was urged that he was not present at the spot and he lives in Bilal Town located at a sufficient distance from the place of occurrence. However P.W. Has explained that he was present at the house of his brother as some negotiation was going on for marriage of Mst. Zubaida Bibi daughter of P.W.10. He accompanied the injured to the hospital DHQ Jhelum.
10. The injured was medically examined by the doctor at 7-45 p.m. Evidence of motive was furnished by P.W.10. They stated that after the period of 20 minutes from receipt of injuries he took the deceased to the hospital. P.W.9 Muhammad Khan S.-I. Stated that he on the receipt of information reached DHQ Jhelum where Abdul Qayyum got recorded his statement. In the F.I.R. It was clearly mentioned that a quarrel took place three months prior to the occurrence between the deceased and the accused Jawad Iqbal. Though it is argued that the motive was not supported by any strong evidence, but, in my opinion it will not have any bearing whatsoever for more than one reason. The motive may behidden in the mind of the appellants. The existence or absence of motive in this case will have no importance in the circumstances of the case.
11. The deceased was a young man of 17 years of age. The appellants caused injuries on the vital part of his body with Danda which resulted in his death. The recoveries were effected from them.
The medical evidence fully support the ocular account. The false implication of the appellants is excluded by a prompt lodging of F.I.R., wherein the accused were nominated with the specific role.
The plea of substitution raised in the arguments by the learned counsel, that some else has committed the murder of the deceased in the dark hours, has no basis and is belied by the mere fact that the deceased was shifted to the hospital within 20 minutes by P.W.10 and P.W.11. The doctor also deposed that at 7-45, p.m. The deceased in injured condition was examined by him. P.W.9 also deposed that Abdul Qayyum P.W. Was available and on recording his statement he submitted the complaint for registration of formal F.I.R. Even otherwise, substitution is a rare phenomeanon. It is not acceptable that a real father will leave the actual culprits and involve the appellants falsely in the absence of any grave previous enmity.
12. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence found correctly that the motive part of the prosecution is proved and the ocular evidence is supported by medical evidence. He also relied on the recovery at the pointation of the appellants. The conviction recorded by the learned trial Court is, thus, well reason and in accordance with principle of administration of justice on criminal side.
13. So far as case of Imran Iqbal is concerned he has been attributed causing of injury on the lips of the deceased. The medical officer appearing in the witness-box has pointed in cross-examination that the injuries may have been caused by a fall on the ground. The learned trial Court gave the benefit of doubt to Imran accused. The conclusion of the trial Court cannot be termed as arbitrary, perverse or shocking. The learned counsel for the complainant in support of his appeal against acquittal of Imran has not been able to point out any illegality or misreading or non-reading of evidence, therefore, interference is declined to the acquittal of Imran recorded by the learned trial Court. Double presumption of innocence is attached to a judgment of acquittal passed by the competent Court which cannot be upset unless found perverse or arbitrary.
14. In view of the above, this appeal having no merit is dismissed.