1988 P Cr (PLP)

2. The occurrence in this case took place on 6‑1‑1986 at 1‑30 a.m. on the bridge of Jabbi Canal in the area of village Jabbi, at a distance of five miles from Police Station Mitha Tiwana. The occurrence was reported .to the police through statement Ex.PC made by Haqnawaz PW 3 which was recorded by Sabir Hassan ASI PW. 7 in the Civil Hospital, Mitha Tiwana on 6‑1‑1986 at 5‑45 p.m. Formal FIR Ex.PC/1 was recorded on the same day at 5‑50 p.m. at the police station by Muhammad Aslam Head Constable (not produced).

3. Regarding motive it has been alleged that about 12 years prior to the occurrence, Haqnawaz has given beating to Ata Muhammad, brother‑in‑law of the appellant and Mst. Aslam Khatoon, sister of the appellant, although no case was registered about that occurrence, and to avenge that the appellant had injured Haqnawaz PW in order to kill him.

4. About the main occurrence, it has been stated that on the eventful day, the complainant was present‑at the hotel of Rana Muhammad Hussain at 11‑30 a.m. near Jabbi Canal Bridge that the appellant came there armed with hatchet, He advanced towards Haqnawaz PW from his backside and inflicted a hatchet blow hitting him on the right shoulder. After receipt of this injury Haqnawaz fell down. Second blow was caused with hatchet to Haqnawaz hitting him on the waist and third blow was caused with hatchet on his left elbow. When he tried to get up, a blow was caused whereby he was hit on the chin. Ghulam Hussain PW.4 and Sawal Khan (not produced). witnessed the occurrence and came near the injured PW. whereupon the appellant made good his escape from the place of occurrence.

5. The appellant was arrested on 23‑2‑1986 from his unit as he happened to be an army personnel. On 24‑2‑1986 while in police custody, the appellant led to the recovery of hatchet P.3 (not blood‑stained) from underneath a Kikar tree standing near Jabbi Canal Bridge. The hatchet was seized vide memo Ex.PE which has been attested by Ahmad Sher P.W.6 Rabnawaz (not produced) and Sabir Hussain ASI P.W.7.

6. Haqnawaz P.W.3 the injured witness, and Ghulam Hussain P.W. 4, testified at the trial to furnish the ocular account of the prosecution case. These two eye‑witnesses have fully supported the prosecution version as disclosed in the F . I . R .

7. The plea of the appellant was of total denial. He maintained that he had been selected for being sent to Saudi Arabia and as there was rivalry between the parties on account of matrimonial ties, therefore, out of rivalry he has been falsely involved. The appellant, however, did not produce any evidence in his defence nor he himself appeared in his defence under section 340, Cr.P.C.

8. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the FIR in this case has been recorded after the delay of six hours which has not been explained; the recovery of hatchet is doubtful and that the motive is very weak.

9. Regarding delay in the F.I.R. it may be observed that the occurrence took place at 11‑30 a.m. The injured P.W. was first taken to Civil Hospital Mitha Tiwana at a distance of five miles in tonga which was also fetched from a distance of about two miles, as stated by the P.Ws. After he was medically examined and given medical aid the police was informed and Sabir Hussain ASI came to the hospital where he recorded the statement Ex.PC of the complainant. The delay thus stands explained.

10. Alleged recovery of hatchet at the instance of the appellant is otherwise of no consequence, because it is not connected with the crime inasmuch as it was not blood‑stained at the time of recovery, but in the presence of direct evidence comprising of the testimonies of Haqnawaz P.W. 3 and Ghulam Hussain P.W. 4, no corroboration is needed in the circumstances of this case. Ghulam Hussain P.W.4 is not related to Haqnawaz P.W. His place of residence is admittedly adjacent to Jabbi Canal Bridge. He claims that he was already present at the time of occurrence on the hotel of Rana Ghulam Hussain and that the injured P.W. came there 15/20 minutes later. This is a broad-day light occurrence, in which a single accused is involved. There is thus no occasion for any substitution.

11. In the light of the above observations it is concluded that the guilt has been fully brought home to the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. He caused as many as four injuries on different parts of the body of Haqnawaz. These are all cut wounds. Two of the injuries have been declared to be grievous. It so transpires from the testimony of P.W. 5 Dr. Muhammad Rafiq, who medically examined Haqnawaz on 6‑1‑1986. The measurements of the cut wounds found on the person of Haqnawaz are indicative of the fact that these injuries were caused by a hatchet. The doctor has opined that these injuries were caused by sharp‑edged weapon. The duration of the injuries has been given as two hours. This shows that the injured was promptly taken to the hospital at a distance of five miles. Since the appellant caused out wounds with hatchet on the body of the injured P.W. by repeating the blows four times, it can be safely concluded that he attempted the murder of the injured. In the circumstances of this case, the sentence awarded to the appellant is also quite appropriate and does not call for any interference.

12. In the light of the foregoing conclusions the conviction and sentence of the appellant is upheld and his appeal is dismissed. S.A./R‑57/L Conviction maintained.