1984 P Cr (PLP)

(10) An incised wound 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. with chip fracture right ulna back upper hand. (11) Contusion 16 c.m. x 4 c.m. on back right forearm distal half. (12) An incised wound 1 c.m. x c.m. with fracture middle finger metacarpal bore on back palm right. (13) Contusion 10 c. m. x 4 c.m. on left scapular region back chest. (14) Contused wound 1 c.m. x c.m. bone deep on tuberosity right tiliar. (15) Contused wound 6 c.m. x 5 c.m. with fracture tibia on front of right leg mid third. (16) Contused wound 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. with fracture both bones front right leg distal 1/3, 3 c.m. below injury No. 15. (17) Contusion 5 c. m. x 4 c.m. on right temple. (18) Contused wound c.m. x c.m. with fracture both bones on front left leg distal . (19) Contused wound 4 c.m. x 1 c.m. with fracture both bones left leg mid third, 9 c.m. above injury No. 18. (20) Contused wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. bone deep inner side mid third left leg. (21) Incised wound 2 c.m. x c.m. bone deep front left leg upper 1/3. (22) Oblique contusion 13 c.m. x 5 c.m. on outer side left thigh mid third. (23) Amputation with sharp-edged weapon of 3 left fingers except little finger at level of proximal 1/3 of proximal phalanges. (24) An incised wound 1 c. m. x c.m. bone deep cutting the tendons on back first phalange left little finger in line with injury No. 23. (25) Contusion 1 I c.m. x 4 c.m. on back palm, back wrist and distal left forearm back. (26) Transverse incised wound 11 c. m. x 3 c. m. cutting through and through both bones and muscles of back left forearm distal 1/3. (27) Contusion 9 c.m. x 5 c.m. on back left forearm upper 1/3 of the elbow. (28) An abrasion 3 c.m. x c.m. back left arm distal . In the opinion of doctor death had been caused due to injury No. 6 result ing in shock and severe haemorrhage. Additional effect was caused by injury Nos. 15, 16, 18, 19, 23 and

26. Injury No. 6 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All injuries were ante- mortem. Injury No. 6 was reported dangerous to life and injury Nos. 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 24 and 26 were grievous in nature and rest were declared simple.

7. The appellants and their co-accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The appellants denied the allegations and recoveries of blood stained hatchets at their instance. According to the appellants it was uncles of the deceased Muhammad Uzair P.W. and Inayat (given up) who got Arshad killed and falsely involved the appellants because Inayat (given up) had refused to marry his daughter to the deceased when the deceased threatened to abduct her. The appellants did not lead any evidence in their defence.

8. The trial Court found that all the three eye-witnesses Uzair Ahmad (P. W. 6), Khalid Mahmood (P. W. 7) and Manzoor Ahmad (P. W. 9) were closely related with the deceased and were inimical towards the appellants but found that the medical evidence supported it and their testimony was corroborated by the motive which had been established and by the recoveries of blood-stained hatchets from the appellants which had been proved by independent evidence. Four of the co-accused of the appellants were acquitted because the ocular evidence was not corrobo rated qua them.

9. It has been argued before us by learned counsel for the appellants that the ocular evidence comprised interested witnesses and could not be relied upon without independent corroboration which was not forth coming in the case as their testimony had not been believed by the trial Court qua the acquitted accused, that motive was a double edged weapon, that the recoveries of weapons of offence had not been proved and the F.I.R. was belated. It has also been argued that the defence version was totally ignored by the trial Court.

10. It is not in dispute that Uzair Ahmad complainant P.W. was uncle of the deceased. Khalid Mahmood was real brother of the deceased and the third eye-witness Manzoor Ahmad was maternal uncle of the deceased. The relationship has not been denied but that alone is no ground to discard testimony of an eye-witness who has otherwise truthfully deposed about the occurrence. It is also in evidence that criminal litigation including proceedings under section 107/151, Cr. P. C. was pending between the parties. It was for these reasons that the learned trial Judge looked for independent corroboration. The medical evidence disclosed that Khalid Mahmood P.W. also suffered injuries simultaneously. He is a boy of 12 years whose presence at the spot cannot be doubted. He truthfully deposed about the occurrence. The testimony of the three eye-witnesses is uniform, consistent and confidence inspiring. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out any material discrepancy in their testimony. The medical evidence in this case bears e out that the deceased died on account of violence having suffered as many as 28 injuries, eight of which were declared grievous. The time and place of occurrence are not disputed. We find that the trial Court rightly believed the ocular evidence and the medical evidence supports it.

11. The trial Court took abundant caution to look for corroboration. After arrest the appellants led to the recovery of blood-stained hatchets and the positive results of Chemical Examiner as well as the Serologist connect them with the offence. It has been argued that weapons of offence were given to Hidayat Ullah P.W., on 4-1-1979 for delivery to the Chemical Examiner but he delivered it to the Chemical Examiner on 6-1-1979 and during the intervening period the parcels of hatchets were not kept in safe custody. It is in evidence that the Chemical Examiner found the seals of parcels intact. The failure of Hidayat Ullah P.W. to deliver these in time was explained with which we are satisfied. Mere fact that redeposit of the parcels on 4-1-1979 and 5-1-1979 was not mentioned in his statement does not create any doubt that the parcels were tampered with. The objection that, he weapons were recovered after seven days and were sent to the Chemical Examiner after 13 days and that the blood must have disintegrated has no force. The Chemical Examiner did find that the hatchets were stained with blood and the Serologist confirmed that report vide Exhs. P. V/1 and P. W/1, respectively. The delay in recovery and despatch of the weapons in the circumstances of the case/ does not create any doubt in the evidence led by the prosecution. We find that the recoveries were proved by independent witnesses who had no motive or ill-will against the appellants. Muhammad Inayat (P.W. 11)' who proved the recoveries from the appellants was not related to the deceased and was not inimical towards the appellants. The Investigating Officer, Tahir Mahmood P.W., independently investigated the case giving benefit to four co-accused of the appellants and fully explained the delay in recovery of weapons. We are satisfied that the recoveries of blood stained hatchets from the appellants were proved by the prosecution and connected the appellants with the offence which corroborated the ocular evidence in the case.

12. The occurrence took place before sunset time on 15-12-1978 near bridge of a saim nala in the area of Mauza Shod Chattha. The deceased m injured condition and injured P.W. Khalid Mahmood had to be brought straight to the hospital for medical aid after covering 5 miles from the spot by trolly. The deceased in injured condition was admitted in the Civil hospital, Hafizabad at 7 p.m. On a ruqqa received from the doctor Noor Hussain P. W. went to the hospital where he recorded state ment of Uzair Ahmad P.W. at 3-30 p.m. on which formal F.I.R. was registered at 9-45 p.m. the same day. Therefore, we find that the F.I.R. was promptly lodged in the circumstances of the present case.

13. The motive alleged by the prosecution was proved and further corroborated the ocular evidence. The appellants did not even dispute it. The defence version is not plausible. It was rightly rejected by the trial Court.

14. On the evidence on record we find that the trial Court was p right in convicting the appellants and we maintain their convictions.

15. According to the medical evidence Muhammad Arshad died as a result of injury No. 6 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This was described as an oblique contusion on the left side of chest lower part. This injury was specifically attributed to Sarfraz alias Sarwar appellant. Therefore, we do not find any mitigating circum stance in his case and we maintain the sentences awarded to him by the trial Court. The case of Imtiaz and Ashraf appellants is distinguishable. They are alleged to have caused injuries generally including injuries on fingers and left and right arm of the deceased. Both these appellants are not alleged to have specifically hit any vital part of the body of the deceased. In the circumstances of the present case we are of the view that lesser sentence of imprisonment for life to each of them will serve the end of justice.

16. For the foregoing reasons we maintain convictions of Imtiaz and Ashraf appellants but reduce their sentences to imprisonment for life and uphold other sentences awarded to them by the trial Court. The death g sentences imposed on them are not confirmed. Their appeal is otherwise dismissed. The appeal of Sarfraz alias Sarwar is dismissed in toto. The death sentence of Sarfraz alias Sa-war appellant is confirmed. M.Y.H. Appeal dismissed.