1976 P Cr (PLP)

2. The occurrence took place at 3‑00 a. in. on the 26th of December, 197(1, in Kills No. 10 of square No. 26, of Chak No. 114/10‑R, at a distance of 5 miles from Police Station Jahanian. F. I. R. (Exh. P. A.) was lodged by. Ali Muhammad (P. W. 11), father of the deceased on the same day at 7‑00 a. m. and it was recorded by Jamal Din S. I. (P. W. 9) at Police station Jahanian.

3. The motive for crime as stated in the F.

1. R. is that the deceased had illicit liaison with Mat., Hanifan (P. W. 6), his maternal aunt and 3/4 months prior to the occurrence she also developed illicit relationship with the appellant. Since both the deceased and the appellant were carrying on joint business of selling milk, it is stated that the appellant murdered the deceased on account of rivalry. This motive has been disbelieved by the trial Court. Another motive was advanced by Ali Muhammad (P. W. 11) is his statement before the trial Court to the effect that Mst. Basri to whom ho had been married was divorced by him. From Mst. Basri be had a son, namely, the deceased and two daughters. After her divorce she contracted another marriage with one Sharfoo at Multan. The two daughters also went to live with the mother. She promised to marry one daughter with the appellant but Ali Muhammad P. W. was opposed to the same. The deceased, bet brother took away the girl from Multan to Chat No. 42/10‑R. where he was living. The inference of this motive is that, therefore, the appellant who was a suiter for the hand of the sister of the' deceased may have thought that the deceased was standing is the way of his marrying her. Anyway, the second motive has also been disbelieved by the trial Court.

4. The prosecution has produced two eye‑witnesses of the occurrence, namely Rafique (P. W. 12) sad Habib (P. W. 13). They both are disinterested witnesses.

5. The appellant was apprehended on the spot by the above mentioned two eye‑witnesses alongwith the 'weapon of offence i.e. blood‑stained knife P.

1. He was formally arrested on the same day by Jamal Dim S. I. P. W. The recoveries effected from him, blood‑stained knife P. 1 was taken into possession vide memo Exh. P. B, dated the 26th of December, 1970. The attesting witnesses are Rafique (P. W. 12), 'Habib (P. W. 13) and Dalil Khan (P. W. 7) besides the Investigating Officer. Blood stained clothes of the appellant, chaddar P. 2, patka P. 3, shirt P. 4, banyan P. 5 and chaddar P. 6 were got removed from the person of the appellant at the time of his arrest and taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. D., dated the 26th of December, 1970. The attesting witnesses are Dalil Khan (P. W. 7) and Habib (P. W. 13) besides the Investigating Officer. According to the report of the Serologist (Exh. P. V.) the above mentioned articles were found to be stained with human blood.

6. Dr. Zafar Durrani (P. W. 1) conducted post‑mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased at 12‑W noon on the 27th of December, 1970, and found on his person a ligature mark 6' x 1' on the front of the neck. The other injuries were (1) incised wound on the chest, (2) incised wound cutting the left lower part of sternum, (3) incised wound on the back of chest, (4) an abraded area under the chin, (5) incised wound at the right upper neck; (6) abrasion on the back of chest, (7) abrasion on the right iliac region, and (8) two incised wounds on the back of neck. In his opinion, the death was due to shock and bleeding from injury No (3) and (5). The ligature on the neck and injuries Nos. (1) and (2) were either inflicted just when he was dying or when was dead. The incised injuries bad been caused by a sharp‑edged weapon whereas the others were caused by blunt weapon. Dr. Muhammad Aslam (P. W. 2) medically examined the appellant at 6.30 p.m. on the 6th of December, 1970, and found on his person two incised wounds skin deep on the pulp of right thumb and outer palm of right hand. The third injury was an abrasion on the outer side of left knee. All the injuries were simple. Injuries Nos. (1) and (2) were caused by sharp‑edged weapon and injury No. (3) was caused by blunt weapon. He stated in the cross‑examination that it was possible to have such injuries when the person grasps the knife of a person attacking upon him.

7. The appellant in his statement before the trial Court admitted that he was accompanying the deceased on the sight of occurrence. He stated that he and the deceased were returning home at late hours. When they reached near the deserted kothas where previously a floor mill was installed, 3/4 persons emerged from those kothas and attacked them. One of them put a cloth round the neck of the deceased and felled him on the ground while the others started giving injuries to him. The appellant raised alarm but he was also attacked by one of the assailants. However, he managed to run away after receiving two injuries on his band. He went to the Chak and informed Mst. Basri mother of the deceased and Majid, his maternal uncle. He joined investigation and made a statement before the police. According to him the assailant was Yasin, the husband of Mst. Manzooran who was pressing the deceased to divorce her sister Mst. Bashiran. Later the whole family conspired against him and be was involved in this case.

8. In the F. I. R. the occurrence is reported to have taken place in the following manner: Ali Muhammad P. W. father of the deceased was informed by the village Chowkidar that his son had been murder the appellant with a knife and that the occurrence had been witnessed by Habib and Rafique P. Ws. who had apprehended the appellant along with blood‑stained knife on the spot. On hearing this he went along with the Chowkidar to the place of occurrence where Habib and Rafique P. Ws. informed him about the same. He saw that his son was lying dead on the spot. He left the appellant in the custody of the two eye‑witnesses and came along with Dahl Khan Chairman P. W. to lodge the F. I. R.

9. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and carefully perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to make out a case that since both the motives set up by the prosecution in this case had been disbelieved by the trial Court, it would have bearing on the prosecution version. The reasoning is that in the circumstances the prosecution case being weak should not be relied upon. I pointed out to learned counsel that the establishing of motive is not necessary in a murder case. In the present case two eye‑witnesses who are disinterested and there is noshing on the record to indicate that either they were related to the complainant party or they were hostile to the appellant, had not only witnessed the occurrence but had managed to apprehend the appellant on the spot alongwith the blood stained knife which had been used as the weapon of offence. Their version finds corroboration in the apprehension of the appellant on the spot, the recovery of blood‑stained knife from him, the recovery of blood‑stained clothes from the appellant, the opinion of the Serologist as well as the medical evidence. The defence to the effect that the appellant and th deceased returned together at late hours of the night but were ambushed and attacked by some unknown assailants who caused injuries to th deceased and also inflicted two incised injuries on the hand of th appellant is not plausible at all. At least the appellant has admitted that he was in the company of the deceased at the time of occurrence. It appears that he had to make this admission because he was apprehended on the spot and had to give an explanation as to how ho happened to be present at the scene of crime. The simple incised injuries sustained by him on the hand were probably the result of this use of the weapon u offence against the deceased. Normally, when a knife is used as a weapon of offence by an assailant it some times happens that he sustains simple incised injuries on his thumb or palm. Since the presence of the appellant at the scene of crime is established, the recovery of blood‑stained knife from him as well as removing of blood‑stained clothes from his person and the ocular testimony leaves no doubt in my mind that it was in fact the appellant who had inflicted injuries and caused the death of the deceased. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case against the appellant, and, therefore, his conviction as well as sentence were quite proper and they are accordingly maintained. This appeal id dismissed Appeal dismissed.