1991 PLP 2506 (MLD)

2. The prosecution case is that Muhammad Aslam deceased and Zafar Iqbal appellant were school fellows. About 3/4 days prior to the occurrence, they had quarrelled with each other and the appellant had threatened the deceased with dire consequences. On 20-1-1986 at about 1.45 P.M. on the closure of the school the deceased came out. The appellant who was standing outside the school attacked him with a chhurri on his abdomen. He tried to inflict another injury on the deceased but he warded off the same. In that bid the chhurri hit the appellant's head. The occurrence was witnessed by Inayat P.W.7 and Munir Ahmad P.W.8 who took the deceased to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. Muhammad Akbar reported the matter to the police vide statement EXh.P.A./1 made to Aman Ullah, S.I. P.W.9 on the same day at about 4 P.M. The said S.I. prepared the injury statement and inquest report of the deceased and arrested the appellant on 21-1-1986. He secured blood-stained chhurri P.3 from his possession through memo Exh.P.G. attested by Muhammad Inayat P.W.7 and Munir Ahmad P.W.8. The chhurri was found to be stained with human blood by the Serologist.

3. Dr. Najam-ul-Hassan Medical Officer P.W.5 conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Aslam deceased aged 14/15 years and found the following injury on his person: "A stab wound 2 c.m. x 3/4 c.m. x going into chest cavity 5 c.m. below and left side of lower edge of exyphi sternum 11-1/2 c.m. obliquely below tile left nipple." The injury had cut the posterior aspect of heart which was sufficient to cause death. It was ante-mortem and was caused by sharp-edged weapon. He had also examined Zafar Iqbal appellant and found a contused wound 2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. on the right side of his head. 6 c.m. above the right ear. The injury was simple in nature and caused by blunt weapon.

4. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and made the following statement to explain the occurrence. "On the day of occurrence at recess time in the School I came out of the class and was playing with other boys. At that time Muhammad Aslam, deceased alongwith his friend Khizar Hayat came to me. The deceased put his finger into my buttock for which I protested. The deceased and Khizar Hayat made me fall on the ground. The deceased took out a chhurri and inflicted blow with it on my head and when the deceased was going to give me second blow I took out a small knife which I had kept with me for mending pencils and Kalams and gave a single injury to the deceased in self-defence from underneath." He did not call any evidence in defence but produced his School Certificate Exh.D.E. to show that on the day of occurrence he was about 11 years of age.

5. The prosecution case rests on the evidence of Muhammad Inayat P.W.7 and Munir Ahmad PW.8. Both of them testified to the occurrence as also recovery of blood-stained chhurri from the possession of the appellant. Muhammad Akbar PW. 6 father of the deceased did not witness the occurrence himself but was informed about it by Muhammad Inayat and Munir Ahmad P.Ws. The learned trial Court disbelieved the motive introduced by Muhammad Akbar P.W. 6, father of the deceased regarding the quarrel taking place between the appellant and the deceased over the snatching of book belonging to the deceased by the appellant on the ground that it was not mentioned in the F.I.R. The learned trial Court was of the view that it was introduced to give the incident a colour of premeditation. He was of the view that the motive leading to the occurrence was shrouded in mystry. He disbelieved the defence plea and relying on the ocular testimony corroborated by the recovery of blood-stained chhurri P.3 from the appellant convicted him under section 304, Part I, P.P.C.

6. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that both the eye-witnesses are closely related to the deceased and as such are not worthy of credence without any independent corroboration.

7. On behalf of the State, it is argued that the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution had no enmity against the appellant and thus could not be termed as interested witnesses and being natural witnesses deserve credence.

8. Muhammad Inayat P.W. 7 and Munir Ahmad P.W. 8 stated that they were waiting for a wagon to go to Bhalwal near village Primary School when they witnessed the occurrence. Both of them though related to the complainant had no animus against the appellant. They expressed ignorance as to what had transpired between the appellant and the deceased before the former launched attacked on the latter. They stand corroborated by the medical evidence. Being a case of single accused there was no question of substitution. Moreover, the appellant has also not denied the occurrence, although he gave a different version of the same. The deceased and the appellant had suffered one injury each of the same duration. The immediate cause of occurrence being not available, the possibility of their having a physical altercation cannot be ruled out. As already stated above the learned trial Court was of the view that the occurrence had taken place without any motive or premeditation. From the circumstances of the case, I am not in a position to take a contrary view and uphold the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court and while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, reduce the period of his imprisonment to the one already undergone by him plus a fine of Rs. 10,000 or in default to undergo one year's R.I. On payment of fine the appellant shall be released-from the Reformatory Jail, Bahawalpur if not required in any other case. The above concession in the sentence is given to him because he is reported to be in prison eversince his conviction recorded on 29-5-1986. For the reasons discussed above the revision fails and is dismissed accordingly. H.B.T./Z-222/L??????????????????????? Appeal and revision dismissed/Order accordingly.