1990 PLP 1548 (MLD)

(3) A stab wound 1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x depth not probed on the front of right middle abdomen 13 c.m. below the umblicus at 6 `o cluck position. (4) A stab wound 2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x muscle deep on the front of right thigh. (5) A stab wound 2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. muscle deep on the back of right thigh. (6) An incised wound 3 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x bone deep on the front of right hand. (7) An incised wound 3 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x bone deep on the front of right side of head. Corresponding cuts on the shirt and Shalwar were present. The condition of the injured was serious. Injuries No.l, 2 and 7 were kept under observation. All the injuries were caused by sharp‑edged and pointed weapon and were found to be fresh.

5. On 26‑2‑1981 at 11 a.m. the said Doctor conducted the post‑mortem examination on the dead body and found the following injuries on her person:‑‑ (1) A stab wound stitched 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. going deep on the front of right lower chest. The wound was oblique. (2) A stab wound (stitched) x c.m. x 1/2 c.m. going deep on the front of left lower chest. The wound was vertical and was directed downward. (3) A stab wound (stitched) 1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. going deep on the front of right middle abdomen 3 c.m. below umblicus at 6 O'clock condition. (4) A stab wound (stitched) 2 cm. x 1/2 c.m. x muscle deep on the front of right thigh. (5) A stab wound (stitched) ‑2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x muscle deep on the back of right thigh. (6) An incised wound (stitched) 3 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. bone deep on the front of right side of hand. (7) An incised wound (stitched) 3 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. bone deep on the right side of hand. (8) A laprotomy wound (stitched) on the left side of abdomen. In the opinion of the Doctor the death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries No.l and

2. These injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante‑mortem and were caused by sharp edged and pointed weapon. The probable time between injuries and death was within about four days. The time between death and post mortem examination was within about ten hours.

6. Fazal Din P.W.9 and Abdul Rashid P.W.10, both neighbours of the complainant, provided an eye‑witness account and supported the prosecution version in its detail. Fazal Din P.W.9 stated that Rashid P.W.10 and Idrees (not produced) were sitting with him at about 10/11 a.m. when they heard an alarm from the house of the complainant. They immediately went there. The witness deposed that it was the appellant who inflicted 4/5 knife blows to Mst. Abida Bibi in their presence. The victim fell down on the ground on receipt of the injuries. He also stated that they attempted to catch the appellant but he threatened them with the knife and as such was able to run away from the spot with his weapon. To the same effect is the statement having been made by Abdul Rashid P.W.10. The appellant while making a statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the allegations levelled against him and disclosed that mother of the deceased wanted to marry her with him and that three days earlier to the occurrence, the deceased refused to marry the son of Fazal Din P.W.9 in presence of the Nikah Khawn and other eye‑witnesses and that on account of refusal, complainant and Fazal Din P.W.9 inflicted injuries to her and that he had been implicated falsely in the case. However, in support of his plea, the appellant did not lead any evidence in defence.

7. Learned counsel contends that from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is established that Fazal Din P.W.9 and Abdul Rashid P.W.10 did not at all see the occurrence and that they had deposed evidence in favour of the prosecution only because they happened to be neighbours of the complainant. Learned counsel maintains forcefully that there is delay of about 22 hours in lodging the F.I.R. and that no plausible explanation in that behalf has been given by the complainant. Learned counsel has also submitted that it is apparent from the medical evidence that two types of weapons were used in the infliction of injuries to the victim. In this behalf, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the evidence deposed by Dr. Bashir Kahloon P.W.13. Learned counsel urges that the children of locality disclosed to Mst. Zahra Bibi, that her daughter had been done to death by some unknown assailants. This being so, according to the learned counsel, the, occurrence was not witnessed by the prosecution witnesses. Lastly, it is argued forcefully that the inordinate delay, referred to above, in the lodgement of the FIR, demonstrates that during this period, the appellant had falsely been implicated in the case. The learned State counsel has supported the conviction and sentence of the, appellant. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that there are no mitigating circumstances and as such the appellant should have been sentenced to death inasmuch as he had committed a brutal murder of a young lady.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have perused the record. We do not find any substance in the arguments raised and argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. There appears some delay in lodging the FIR, however, from the facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that there is an ample explanation for this delay. Muhammad Rafique P.W.6 on receipt of the information immediately returned home and took the injured to Civil Hospital, Faisalabad, for her treatment. The injured was admitted in the hospital in a critical condition where she died on 26‑2‑1981. Dr. Bashir Kahloon P.W.13 deposed that the injured was in a serious condition and that she was unconscious when brought in hospital. Thus, in the circumstances, in view of the serious condition of the victim, it was not expected of the father of the victim to leave her alone there and to go to the police station to lodge the report. His first duty was to make efforts to save life of the injured. This was, of course, done by him. The delay in lodging the FIR has been found by us to be of no significance at all. We, therefore, proceed to repel the argument of the learned counsel. Fazal Din P.W.9 and Abdul Rashid P.W.10 are the two most natural witnesses in the case being neighbours of the complainant. Both of them reached the spot on hearing the alarm of unfortunate girl without losing time. This is in the evidence that Fazal Din P.W.9 and Abdul Rashid P.W.10 were sitting together at a distance of 10/11 yards away from the spot at the time of occurrence. In other words, they were sitting within the hearing range of the alarm being raised by the victim. According to medical evidence, the victim received as many as 7 injuries on her 'person. The evidence of eye‑witnesses is wholly in line with the medical evidence. These witnesses stated that in their presence the appellant inflicted 4/5 injuries to the deceased. It is therefore natural that by the time the witnesses would reach, the appellant might have already caused some injuries to the victim. The eye‑witness account, therefore, stands corroborated by the medical evidence. There is nothing on the record that Fazal Din P.W.9 and Abdul Rashid P.W.10 deposed evidence on account of some ill‑will or malice. Even otherwise, no enmity whatsoever, was suggested to the witnesses by the defence during the lengthy cross‑examination of these witnesses. This being so, the eye‑witness account goes unchallenged by the defence. The appellant was arrested on 28‑2‑1981 and while in police custody, he led to the recovery of knife P4 from the graveyard of Chormajra. The recovery of knife P4 also lends support to the prosecution evidence. The said knife was found stained with human blood as reported by the Serologist vide his report Ex. PQ. We are, therefore, convinced that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The eye‑witness account inspires confidence and is worth reliance. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the appellant was correctly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court. However, there appears no justification whatsoever to enhance the sentence of life imprisonment of the appellant to death at this belated stage. Further, the motive as set up by the prosecution is shrouded in mystery inasmuch as there is no evidence in support thereof. No doubt, the statement of the deceased was recorded by the investigating officer under section 161 Cr.P.C. but the said statement was never proved as required by law. We are, therefore, of the view that the sentence already awarded to the appellant is justified in law and evidence available on record.

9. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal and the revision both being without substance, are dismissed. N.H.Q/L‑87/L Appeal dismissed.