1994 P Cr (PLP)

3. The motive for the occurrence is stated to be that about six months before the occurrence, Muhammad Akram deceased had sold certain cassettes to the accused Muhammad Munir Tahir who avoided to pay for them, whereas Muhammad Akram had tried to get the money due, being the value of the cassettes, from the accused and had quarrelled on that account.

4. The prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses in support of its case. Dr. Imtiaz Ahmad Gill, P.W.1, Senior Medical Officer. D.H.Q. hospital, Faisalabad, performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Akram deceased at 10 a.m. on 11-10-1982 and he found the following injury:-- (1) A stab wound 3 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m. leading into the left side of chest, 2-3/4 c.m. below the left nipple, and 10 c.m. away from the midline. The injury was ante-mortem having been caused by a sharp-pointed weapon. The pleura was out under injury No. l and the left side of the chest was full of blood. The left lung was cut 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 6 c.m. deep. The heart was empty and the stomach contained about six ounces of semi-digested food. The bladder was full of urine. All other organs were healthy. Death in the opinion of the doctor was due to shock and haemorrhage. Injury No. l was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Time between injury and death was about an hour and between death and post-mortem examination 18 hours. Carbon copy of the post-mortem report is Exh.P.A.

5. P.W.2, Zahoor Ahmad, Constable had stated that he had escorted the dead body of Muhammad Akram deceased for post-mortem examination to the mortuary at Faisalabad. P.W.3, Muhammad Ashraf was the scribe of the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.C./l, P.W.4, Aurangzeb Draftsman had prepared the site plan Exh.P.D. and its duplicate Exh.P.D./1. P.W.5, Barkhurdar Ahmad, Constable stated that two sealed parcels were handed over to him by the Sub-Inspector which he kept in the Malkhana intact and handed over the same to Zahoor Ahmad, Constable on 13-10-1982, for onward transmission to the office of the Chemical Examiner, Lahore.

6. P.W.6, Hidayat Ullah is the complainant and he had reiterated the same, what he had stated in the F.I.R. Muhammad Jamil P.W.7, and Fazal-ur Rehman P.W.8 are the eye-witnesses, who had furnished the ocular account of the incident. P.W.9, Rehmat Ullah is the uncle of the deceased Muhammad Akram. He had identified the dead body at the time of the post-mortem examination.

7. P.W.10, Ghulam Abbas, S.I. the Investigating Officer of the case, had stated that on 10-10-1982, he was present at Chowk Nehrwala at about 7 p.m. where he recorded the complaint Exh.P.C. which was read over to him and he signed the same in token of its correctness. Thereafter, sent the complaint to the police station for formal registration of the case, went to the hospital where he prepared the injury statement Exh.P.H. of the deceased and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination under the escort of Zahoor Ahmad, Constable. He searched for the accused but to no avail. He recorded the statements of the P.Ws. on the same day, in the hospital. On 11-10-1982, he inspected the spot, collected the blood-stained earth and took the same into possession fide memo. Exh.P.E., and made it into a sealed parcel. Zahoor Ahmad, Constable produced before him the last-worn clothes of the deceased P.1 and P.2 which he took into possession vide memo. Exh.P.B. He arrested the accused Muhammad Munir Tahir from his house, who led to the recovery of a Chhuri P.3, blood-stained, from his shop by unlocking the same with the key which was taken into possession by him vide memo. Exh.P.F. The Chhuri was made into a sealed parcel. The accused produced a piece of cloth which he took into possession vide memo.'Exh.P.G. He handed over the sealed parcels to Moharrir for safe custody. He got prepared the site plan Exh.P.D. and its duplicate Exh.P.v./1 from the Draftsman and gave his notes in red ink in his own hand. After the completion of the investigation, he had sent the challan to the Court.

8. The accused when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied having committed the offence. He attributed his false implication due to the suspicion and previous enmity with the complainant party. However, no defence evidence was produced.

9. The learned trial Court keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case; highlighted above, convicted the respondent under section 304, Part II, P.P.C. and sentenced him to five years' R.I.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the State were heard at length and the record perused with their assistance. Vide order, dated 22-12-1994, my learned brother Muhammad Munir Khan, J. (as he then was) admitted the criminal revision petition to regular hearing and issued a show-cause notice to respondent No. 1, as to why his sentence should not be enhanced. Since that date, the case has been fixed for final hearing on a number of occasions and adjourned for one reason or the other, but more often because the learned counsel for the petitioner was not available.

11. The case of the petitioner was to the effect that the prosecution case had been proved on the basis of cogent evidence in support of motive, medical evidence, promptness in the lodging of the F.I.R., recoveries including the weapon of offence and the confidence inspiring ocular account and that the learned trial Court had convicted him under lesser offence and awarded him lesser sentence on mere technical ground.

12. However, a perusal of the testimony of the prosecution i.e. the testimony of the P.W.6. Hidayat Ullah complainant to the effect that the deceased had informed him, while in injured condition that accused/respondent had caused him a single injury with Chhuri as they had quarrelled over the dispute regarding carving of handkerchief duly corroborated by the testimony of P. W.7 Muhammad Jamil and P. W.8, Fazal-ur-Rehman respectively as eye witnesses of the occurrence, clearly establishes that the learned trial Court had rightly come to the conclusion that the possibility of sudden quarrel could not be ruled out on the basis of the evidence on the record. As the deceased had gone to the shop of the accused where the quarrel in question had taken place, leading him to inflict a single Chhuri blow to the deceased, no question of premeditation can arise under such circumstances, and that, at best the accused/respondent can p be burdened with the knowledge that the Chhuri blow caused by him was likely to cause death but he had no intention either to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death as he had not repeated the blow with the Chhuri. Therefore, it is hereby held that by holding that the offence was covered under Exception 4 of section 300, P.P.C., the learned trial Court had rightly convicted the accused/respondent under section 304, Part II, P.P.C. and sentenced him to five years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default thereof to one year's R.I. as stated above. Further taking into consideration that the case pertains to the year 1982 and that the accused/respondent in all likelihood had already served out his sentence as he was convicted and sentenced as stated above on 10-6-1984 and as no criminal appeal on his behalf has been fixed for hearing alongwith the criminal revision, although my learned brother Muhammad Munir khan, Z. (as he then was) had so directed vide his A order, dated 29-9-1984, the Court is of the view that it shall serve no useful purpose to interfere with the impugned judgment at this point of time. Consequently no case for enhancement of the sentence of the respondent is made out.

13. For the reasons stated above, the-present criminal revision petition is hereby dismissed. N.H.Q./H-134/L Revision dismissed.