P (PLP)

(2) An incised stab wound " x 1/3" on the left side in the lumber region. (3) A linear scratch 2 " long on the left side of the neck. (4) A linear scratch " long on the left lower jaw. (5) A surgical wound " x " inside left ankle. The vein underneath was ligatured. On opening the body inter‑costal space was found t under injury No

1. Second and third vertebrae were found cut under injury No.

2. Peritoneum was cut at two places. I stomach was also cut under injury No.

1. Death was due to shock and haemorrhage. Injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and were the result of two stabs. Injuries Nos. 3 and 4 could have been caused by scratching. Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were caused with a sharp-edged pointed weapon and injury No. 5, was a surgical wound for giving intravenous food to the patient. The case for the prosecution was supported at the trial by Taj Din P. W. 1, Sadiq P. W. 2, Muhammad Tufail P. W. 3 and Muhammad Rafi P. W.

4. Taj Din gave evidence in support of the report made by him at the police station. Nothing was elicited from him in cross‑examination to throw doubt on his evidence. Sadiq stated that he was in his house and came out on hearing a noise. He saw the accused stabbing the deceased twice with a knife on her back. He stood at a distance of about 12 paces. Muhammad Tufail P. W. 3 was also in his house and came out with him. Taj Din and Muhammad Rafi were already on the spot. The witnesses put Mehraj Begum in a tonga and took her to the police station. Muhammad Tufail made a statement to the same effect as Sadiq. Muhammad Rafi said that he was passing through the lane on his way to Yakki Gate and saw the appellant Bashir striking Mehraj Begum twice with a knife He said that Taj Din, Tufail and Sadiq Hussain also witnessed the occurrence. The accused, the deceased and the prosecution witnesses were all known to him because they belonged to the same Mohalla. The other witnesses in the case are Maqbool Ahmad, Assistant Sub Inspector, who prepared the Inquest Report, Ex. P/S., and Ata Ullah, Sub‑Inspector, who recorded the first information report and the dying declaration. He also investigated the case and arrested the accused soon after the occurrence at 8 p. m. on the 16th October 1947. After investiga tion he challaned the accused who was tried by the Sessions Judge of Lahore in accordance with the provisions of Punjab Public Safety Act and Disturbed Areas Act. On being questioned at the commencement of the trial the accused stated that he had not stabbed Mehraj Begum and he had no illicit connection with the daughter of Bodi Teli. At the close of the case for the prosecution he stated that he had nothing to add to his previous statement but wished to produce defence evidence. He produced only one witness named Shamas Din. The witness said that there were two Charaskhanas in Katri Shahzada. One of them was owned by Sadiq P. W. and the other by Sharif. Shamas Din was sitting in the Chandukhana of Sharif when Mehraj Begum was stabbed. The Chandukhana of Sharif is on the ground floor and the Chandukhana of Sadiq is on the first floor of the same building. At about 7‑30 p. m. some noise was heard. Taj Din P. W and Shamas Din P. Ws. came out and saw Mehraj Begum lying on the ground. Sadiq and Tufail P. Ws. came to the spot after that Taj Din and Tufail went to the police station to make a report. The woman was also taken there. She was, however, unconscious. The witness stayed at the spot for about fifteen or twenty minutes. He did not know the accused before and he did not ask any one as to who had stabbed the woman. He said that he did not make any statement to the police during the investigation as he was a poor man and was afraid of being put to trouble. The learned Sessions Judge was not at all impressed by the evidence of this witness and refused to believe hire. His evi dence, to my mind, does not materially affect the case for the prosecution. He admits the presence of Taj Din, Sadiq and Tufail P. Ws. and there is nothing on the record to show that they have any interest in the deceased or any bias against the accused. No reason has been shown why they have given false evidence. It is suggested that .the deceased was suddenly stabbed in the back and had probably no time to identify her assailant. She, however, suspected the accused because she had some un pleasantness with him and named him on suspicion. The witnesses had no reason to disbelieve the injured woman. They took their cue from her and said that they had seen the accused stabbing Mehraj Begum though in fact they had not I am not at all impressed with this argument and hold that the prosecution have proved that it was the accused who stabbed the deceased in the back and caused her death. The 1, question is whether he intended to cause her death or merely cause her injuries which he knew were likely to cause death. The motive in this case does not appear to be sufficiently strong for the accused to intend to cause the death of the deceased. In my opinion, the accused can be described as a goonda who has not respect for the person of others. He is the type of man who would use a knife on the slightest provocation. He certainly had the knowledge that the injuries with a knife might lead to the death of the woman be was injuring. The intention to cause death is a different matter. In Parmeshri Das v. Emperor (A. I. R. 1934 Lahore 332) a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Shadi Lal, Chief Justice, and Abdul Rashid judge, observed that the accused was an impulsive young man had given two blows with a knife to his victim but neither of the blows was aimed at a vital part of the body. It could not have been present in the mind of the appellant that a stab on the frontal prominence of the hip would penetrate the abdominal cavity and the accused could not be said to have intended to cause death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. The appellant could at the most be burdened with the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death. The knife used in that case was not recovered nor has it been recovered in this case. It was observed that there was no reason to suppose that the knife used by appellant had a big blade, The fact that the stab that case was 1 " in length did not necessarily indicate it the breadth of the blade was 1 " x. A blade only " in breath could inflict a stab wound " in length. The whole depends on the direction of the blow and the manner or the withdrawal of the weapon from the wound. The conviction under section 302, Indian Penal Code, was, therefore, set changed to conviction under section 304, part II, Indian Penal Code. The appellant who was 19 years old was to seven years rigorous imprisonment. In this case injury No. 1 is 1/3" and injury No. 2 is " x 1/3". The accused in this case also a young man of about 22 years. In Mahanarain v. Emperor (A. I. R. 1946 Allahabad 19) where an injury with a knife was inflicted on a part of the body near the liver which was injured and resulted in the conviction was altered from section 302, Indian Penal Code, to section 304, part II; Indian Penal Code. In Khan Mir v. Emperor (A. I. R. 1925 Lahore 148) where the accused had stabbed the deceased with a knife in the chest and caused his death, it was held that a knife was a dangerous weapon and the accused, though he did not intend to cause death, must be held to have known that it was likely to cause death and was; therefore, guilty under section 304, part II, Indian Penal Code. In Naga Po Ein (A. I. R. 1934 Rangoon 110), it was held that where the case is on the border‑line between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the accused is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt and can be convicted only under section 304, part II, Indian Penal Code. For these reasons I would accept the appeal to the extent of altering the conviction of the appellant from section 302, Indian Penal Code, to section 304, part II, Indian Penal Code, and sentence him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J. ‑

I agree. A. H. Conviction altered.