1984 P Cr (PLP)

3. At the trial prosecution examined 10 witnesses in support of its case. Dr. Khurshid Ahmad (P.W.1), who performed the autopsy found following injuries on the person of the deceased Muhammad Ismail. (1) Contusion mark 3" x 2" on right half of his head parallel to median line. (2) Contusion mark 2 " x 2" on top of his head in the median line. (3) Contusion mark 3" x 1 " on left half of his head parallel to median line 4" above the left ear. (4) Eye-lids of both eyes were contused. In the opinion of the doctor death was due to internal haemorrhage and compression of brain which resulted from injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 3, caused with a blunt weapon and were sufficient to cause death individually in the ordinary course of nature.

4. All the eye-witnesses namely, Riaz Ahmad (P.W.7), Noor Muhammad (P.W.8) and Allah Diwaya (P.W.9) supported the prosecution case in its entirety. From amongst the accused persons, Nazir Ahmad appellant and his brother Wazir (acquitted co-accused) admitted their presence at the time of occurrence, however, the remaining co-accused denied their presence at the spot and controverted the allegations levelled against them. Nazir Ahmad appellant stated that he was working at his thrashing flour with trangul P-1 when he heard alarm raised by his brother Wazir. He rushed to that place and saw Ismail deceased beating him with a stick. He entreated him not to do so, whereupon the deceased also gave him a stick blow. He intended to turn back but the deceased gave him another blow. Apprehending danger to his life and to the life of his brother Wazir at the hands of the deceased, he retaliated in exercise of the right of private defence and caused blows to Muhammad Ismail deceased with trangul P-1. He also denied the presence of the rest of the accused at that time.

5. The learned trial Court having analysed the material on record accepted the defence version and acquitted all the accused excepting the appellant and held that he having given three injuries to Muhammad Ismail deceased had the knowledge that such blows were likely to cause his death. It was further held that the appellant had no previous enmity nor had he pre-planned to attack and kill Muhammad Ismail, rather there was a sudden fight between the appellant and the deceased wherein, the appellant had exceeded his right of private defence as he gave three stick blows on the head of the deceased. Consequently, he convicted him under section 304, Part 11, P.P.C. and sentenced him to ten years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5,000 as indicated above.

6. Nazir Ahmad appellant has filed this appeal through jail which came up for hearing for the first time before me today i.e. 3rd April, 1983, that is after about 12 years.

7. I have gone through the record myself and have minutely considered the evidence on record and I find that the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court are perfectly in consonance with the principles of appreciation of evidence for safe administration of criminal justice. t agree with him that the appellant by having given three consecutive blows on the head of the deceased exceeded the right of private defence and was thus liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The sentence of 10 years' R.I. plus compensation awarded to the appellant is proper and adequate in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice. The result is that the conviction and sentence of the appellant is maintained in toto This appeal without merits is hereby dismissed. M.Y.H. Appeal dismissed.