1. ' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---This appeal with the leave of the Court has been preferred against the judgment dated 31-12-1998 passed by a Division Bench of High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, in Criminal Appeal No,316 of 1998 filed by the appellant and Murder Reference No,7 of 1998 sent by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No,1, Quetta under section 374, Cr.P.C. To the High Court for confirmation of sentence of death awarded to the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C.
2. ' The appellant was tried for the charge under section 302(b) read with section 337-F(ii), P.P.C. For committing the murder of one Eid Muhammad and causing injuries to Rehmat Ali, complainant.
3. The learned trial Judge having found the appellant guilty of the charges under section 302(b) read with section 337-F(ii), P.P.C. Convicted and sentenced him in the following manner:--
(a) Under section 302(b), P.P.C. Sentence of death;
(b) Under section 337-F (ii), P.P.C. Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years with the direction to pay fine of Rs,10,000 and in default of the payment of fine, to undergo S.I. For six months.
4. ' In appeal a Division Bench of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta while maintaining the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial Court vide the impugned judgment dismissed his appeal.
5. ' Leave was granted in this appeal vide order dated 11-5-2000 in the following manner:- "Ch. Ghulam Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case the prosecution has led the interested evidence and the circumstantial evidence is not forthcoming. Moreover, according to the prosecution case, the petitioner was arrested on 6-9-1996 whereas after a delay of about twelve days his identification test was held at the police station and for the safe administration of criminal justice, reappraisal of evidence is necessary and that it is a fit case in which leave to appeal may be granted.
6. ' We have also beard Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Khan Tanoli, learned Advocate-General Balochistan.
7. Admittedly, the identification of the petitioner was held after twelve days of his arrest. The circumstantial evidence in this case is not forthcoming. The motive is shrouded in mystery. In order to ascertain whether principle laid down by this Court for safe administration of criminal justice has been considered, we grant leave."
8. ' The relevant facts as narrated in the F.I.R. Lodged by Rehmat Ali complainant at Police Station Gawalmandi, Quetta, and summarized in the judgment of the High Court are that on 5-9-1996 at 8-30 p.m. The complainant after attending marriage of one of his relatives while being on his way back to his home, when reached near Sadiq Tent Service, Shawak Shah Road, Quetta, he saw that the appellant namely Babak alongwith his three companions picked up a quarrel with Eid Muhammad and while exchanging hot words, suddenly took out knife from his "Dubb" and inflicted successive blows with Churri on the chest and face of Eid Muhammad as a result of which he fell down on the ground. The complainant and Rafoo Ahmed, his companion, when made an attempt to help Eid Muhammad, the appellant resisted their intervention and in consequence thereto complainant also sustained injuries on his index finger, palm of right hand and on his ribs at the hand of appellant.
9. ' Initially a case was registered against the culprits under section 324/34, P.P.C. But later, on the death of Eid Muhammad on the same day in hospital, section 302, P.P.C. Was added. The appellant was arrested on 5-9-1996 and he while in police custody led to the recovery of knife which was used by him as weapon of offence from an iron box lying in his house. The identification test parade of the appellant was held on 18-9-1996 under the supervision of a Magistrate in the police station in which the eye-witnesses identified the appellant as culprit. The ocular account in the present case has been furnished by Rehmat AliP.W.1, Abdul Ghafoor P.W.2 and Abdul Saboor P.W.7 whereas Abdul Hadi P.W.3 supervised the identification test parade of the appellant in the police station. Dr. Muhammad Umar P.W.6 conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased while Doctor Shabir Ahmed P.W.9 medically examined the injured witnesses. The prosecution in addition to the above-said witnesses also produced the police officials who remained associated with the investigation and the prosecutor while tendering in evidence the report of the Chemical Examiner relating to the bloodstained earth and the knife which was used as weapon of offence closed the prosecution case.
10. ' The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the charge and while taking plea of alibi in his statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Pleaded innocence and appellant pleaded stating that in consequence to a quarrel taken place between one Salam his opponent and Hazara people prior to the .Occurrence, a case was registered against him vide F.I.R. No,12 of 1996 under section 337-F (ii), P.P.C. At the instance of said Salam in which he was ultimately acquitted. The appellant pleaded that at the time of occurrence, he was present on the other end of Shawak Shah Road at a hotel with one Manan at a reasonable distance from the spot and that he was involved in the case at the instance of Salam. In support thereof placed on record a copy of F.I.R. -lodged against him by Salam and also produced Muhammad Zubair and Dad Muhammad in his defence.
11. ' The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the alleged occurrence had taken place during the dark hours of the night and the appellant being stranger to the witnesses could not possibly be identified at the spot and further the identification parade of the appellant was held after 12 days of the occurrence at the police station with which no sanctity could be attached to be used as evidence. The learned counsel next contended that appellant had no motive to commit the murder of the deceased and in any case the motive being shrouded in mystery, it was not a case of capital punishment.
12. ' Learned counsel representing the State, on behalf of Advocate-General Balochistan, has contended that the appellant being known to the complainant was named by him as accused in the F.I.R. With specific role of causing injuries with knife to the deceased, therefore, there was no need of identification of the appellant through test parade. The learned counsel added that the occurrence took place shortly after "Maghrab" time on the road side in a Bazar and sufficient light must be available in the area, therefore, the identity of the appellant was not difficult and the same being free from any doubt, the identification test parade in the police station was not at all required.
13. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with their assistance. The fateful occurrence admittedly had taken place at 8-30 p.m. On 5-9--1996 in the Bazar at Shawak Shah Road, Quetta after Maghrab time and it must not be dark in the Bazar as is evident from the narration made by Rehmat Ali and Abdul Ghafoor, the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The witnesses undoubtedly were co-workers of the deceased were cobbler by profession but had no enmity with the appellant. Rehmat Ali, the first informant, witnessed the occurrence when he was going to his house after attending a marriage whereas Abdul Ghafoor having inquired about the deceased from Sadiq Tent Service, Shawak Shah Road, Quetta, while proceeding towards the shop of Eid Muhammad, deceased saw that he was in the clutches of the appellant and his companions. The appellant within the sight of witnesses while pulling out a knife from his Dubb stabbed Eid Muhammad and on the intervention of Rehmat Ali also caused him injuries with knife. The eye-witnesses having corroborated each other on each material point, have sufficiently explained their presence at the spot at the time of occurrence. The witnesses are neither related to the deceased nor were inimical to the appellant and therefore, were not interested in his prosecution and conviction and were also not having any motive to implicate him in a false case or substitute him for the real culprit. They were also not chance witnesses as their presence near the place of occurrence at Shawak Shah Road at the time of sad incident was not unexpected or unnatural. The trial Court and also the High Court in appeal have come to the conclusion that eye-witnesses account of the occurrence was truthful and confidence-inspiring and we having judged the finding of the trial Court and the High Court, in the light of evidence of eye-witnesses are of the considered view that no exception can be taken to the said finding of guilt of appellant.
14. ' Abdul Saboor Qureshi(P.W.7) deposed that he was present at Sadiq Tent Service, Shawak Shah Road, Quetta, at a distance of 20/25 paces from the places of occurrence and on coming to know about the quarrel immediately reached at the spot. He deposed that within his sight Noor Muhammad appellant while pulling out a knife from his Dubb, caused injuries on very sensitive parts of the body of the deceased and that on an attempt made by Rehmat Ali to interfere, he also sustained injuries at the hand of appellant. Dr. Muhammad Umar during the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased found that he sustained five injuries out of which, three were caused with blunt weapon and remaining two injuries of the six of 3 x 1-1/2 c.m. 5 c.m.
15. Respectively were found to have been caused with pointed object on the chest. In the opinion of the doctor all injuries were anti-mortem and Injury No,5 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Dr. Shabbir Ahmed P.W.9, medically examined Rehmat Ali whosustained three simple injuries on his person. The same doctor in the night of occurrence having medically examined Noor Muhammad appellant who was brought in custody by an A.S.-I. Of Police Station Gawalmandi to the hospital in injured condition, issued the medical certificate of the appellant under his signature.
16. ' The nature and duration of the injuries on the person of deceased and Rehmat Ali witness would establish the essential facts relating to the time of occurrence and kind of weapon used by the culprit as stated by the eye-witnesses therefore, exclusion of evidence of recovery of knife from consideration, would neither be beneficial to the appellant nor fatal to the prosecution. The direct evidence of independent and disinterested witnesses including Rehmat Ali and injured witness, was alone sufficient to sustain conviction for the charge under sections 302(b)/324, P.P.C. We may observe that the identification test parade in the present case was not at all required as the appellant was being previously known to the witness was not a stranger therefore, there was no need of his identification test parade. This is not understandable that why the necessity of identification test parade in the police station was felt and why the Magistrate who supervised the test identification parade did not object to the holding of it in the police station and if the identification test parade of appellant was at all necessary why he was not sent to the judicial lock up immediately on arrest for identification test parade. The mere fact that the occurrence took place in the dark hours of the night, was not a circumstance to suggest the requirement of test identification parade and that too in the police station. The occurrence took place near Sadiq Tent Service, Shawak Shah Road, Quetta, in the Bazar at 8-30 p.m. And the appellant on being identified by the witnesses at the spot was named in the F.I.R., therefore, we without giving any importance to the identification test parade reject the argument of learned counsel that since the identification of appellant at the spot was doubtful, therefore, the police with a view to establish his identity felt necessity of his identification test parade at the police station. We while excluding the evidence of recovery of knife and identification test parade from consideration examine the guilt of appellant in the light of eye-witnesses account and the medical evidence. As observed in the preceding paragraph, we find that the ocular account of the injured eye-witnesses in the present case was quite independent, truthful and confidence-inspiring which while seeking corroboration from the medical evidence would be sufficient to sustain the conviction and sentence for the charge under section 302(b), P.P.C. The admission of the appellant that at the relevant time he sustained injuries in another occurrence taken place at Shawak Shah Road and was medically examined while in custody during the night of occurrence would also support the prosecution case as appellant has not been able to substantiate his plea of sustaining injuries in another occurrence by any evidence and therefore, this version was not accepted either by the trial Court or by the High Court in appeal and thus the participation of the appellant in the occurrence in which Eid Muhammad deceased lost his life was established beyond doubt.
17. ' The contention of the learned counsel that the possibility of correctness of defence version was not properly attended by the learned trial Judge and also by the High Court which caused serious prejudice to the appellant, being without any substance, we affirm the finding of guilt of the appellant.
18. For the foregoing discussion we while upholding the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant, dismiss this appeal.