1989 PLP 817 (MLD)

3. Manzoor Ahmad lodged the F.I.R. at 6‑00 a.m. at Police Station Paeca Laran which was recorded by Muhammad Zafar A.S.I. The police prepared the injury statement and the inquest report in respect of the deceased and sent his dead body to the mortuary for autopsy which was conducted by Dr. Shakeel Ahmad P.W.10, who listed the following injuries on the dead body of Faiz Bakhsh:‑ (1)A lacerated wound on forehead on left side extending from eye‑brow in the middle upwards measuring 7 x 1 c.m. x bone deep. Bone pieces were coming out of wound. . (2)A lacerated wound on forehead on right side just below hair line extending downward measuring 3 c.m. x 1‑1/2 c.m. x bone deep. Fractured bone was visible through the wound. (3)A lacerated wound on lower lip near left angle measuring 1 c.m. x 1 c.m: x 1/2 c.m. (4)A lacerated wound on upper lip near left angle measuring 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. (5)A lacerated wound on left pinna dividing pina in the middle about 4 c.m. (6)An abrasion on the outer part of right forearm in the middle measuring 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. This medical expert has opined that all the injuries were caused by blunt weapon and were collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He has listed two injuries on the forehead of the deceased.

4. Manzoor Ahmad, Shakoor Ahmad and Ghulam Yasin appellants were apprehended on 29‑6‑1983 and they led to the recovery of Sotas which were not stained with blood and the recovery of Sotas was disbelieved by the learned trial Court: Muhammad Ali appellant was arrested on 12‑2‑198.1 and according to the learned counsel for the appellants nothing was recovered from him. After the completion of the investigation, the challan of the appellants was submitted. As a result of the impugned trial, they were awarded the aforementioned punishment.

5. Manzoor Ahmad P.W.6 is the complainant, who has narrated the incident as stated above. He has attributed the part of murdering Faiz Bakhsh, his son, to all the appellants. When subjected to cross‑examination, he clarified that htst. Khanzadi is his other wife,, who is living in the other house and he sometimes sleeps there and sometimes in the house where the incident took place. He has pointedly stated that he was asleep in the house where this incident took place and Muhammad Ramzan was also there. He has added that Faiz Bakhsh deceased had divorced his wife Mst. Sakhoo after his marriage with Mgt. Jewan.

6. Kist. Jewan P.W.7 the wife of Faiz Bakhsh deceased has corroborated the version by stating that all the appellants had used their Sotis in killing her husband Faiz Bakhsh. She was married to Faiz Bakhsh 14 years ago and had obtained judicial divorce from Allah Bakhsh with whom she was previously married. She has contradicted the fact that it was dark at the time of the incident.

7. Muhammad Ramzan P.W.8, who is the brother of,Faiz Bakhsh has borne testimony to the fact that he had seen this occurrence as he was asleep nearby and all the appellants had injured Faiz Bakhsh with their Sotis, who died subsequently, when he was being taken to the hospital. He was the student of 8th Class during the days of this incident.

8. The appellants pleaded to be innocent when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. They have attributed` their false implication in this case to enmity and suspicion. In defence, Imam Din D.W.1, the Secretary, Union Council Pacca. Laran has stated that Hayat Muhammad told him that Faiz Bakhsh had been murdered and the assailants were not known to him. He transported Manzoor Ahmad to the hospital on a motor‑bike. Sardar Haq Nawaz D.W.2, the Chairman of the Union Council has deposed that Mst. Jewan the widwow of the deceased had told him that the deceased had been murdered at 2 a.m. and she could not tell the names of the murderers. Imam Din D.W.1 and Sardar Haq Nawaz D.W.2 belong to another village namely, Kotla Niazi. Phullan Khan D.W.3 has stated that he visited the spot and he was told that some unknown persons ran away after inflicting injuries to the deceased. He belongs to the village of the appellants who belong to his brotherhood. Abdul Khaliq D.W.4 has stated that Muhammad Ali one of the appellants had come to him at Karachi about 3‑1/2 years ago in search of some job and he got him employed for feeding the cattle. He has added that Muhammad Ali worked with him for. some time and fell ill on 12‑6‑1983 and the doctor had advised him 5/6 days' rest. In cross‑examination, he has stated that the doctor had issued a certificate in favour of Muhammad Ali on 12‑6‑1983.

9. Manzoor Ahiriad, Mst. Jewan and Muhammad Ramzan are the close relatives of the deceased. The incident took place at 4 a.m. in summer. The father, brother and Mst. Jewan the widow of Faiz Bakhsh were asleep in their courtyard and they are the natural witnesses of this incident. The minor discrepancy regarding the location of the injuries and their number on the head is not very material in this case in view of the time of this incident. The motive for the commission of this crime is not denied. Muhammad Ali had a motive to kill Faiz Bakhsh as his proclaimed brother was got arrested by the deceased. He is the son of the maternal‑uncle of Shakoor and Manzoor appellants, whereas Ghulam Yasin is having friendly relations with them. The complainant had no motive to falsely implicate Manzoor Shakoor and Ghulam Yasm as he had no enmity against them. The medical evidence fully corroborates the fact that only Sotis were used on the head, face and the ear of the deceased. In the circumstances, the conviction of the appellants is unexceptionable. The term of sentence awarded to the appellants is also appropriate. I, therefore, see no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same. M.Z.S./M‑1245/L Appeal dismissed.