1985 P Cr (PLP)

Motive for the murder of Shabbir was that the appellant suspected the deceased to be carrying on with his niece Mst. Guddoo. Five/six days prior to the occurrence, the appellant complained to Azam Ali. The matter was enquired into and the deceased denied illicit relations with Guddoo. Azam Ali accordingly informed the appellant. When the occurrence took place Azam Ali was sitting in front of his Dera. Shabbir was also present and so were Muhammad Siddique. Muhammad Bashir, Imam Ali and Hanif. At about 8‑30 p.m. the appellant came there, took the deceased aside and talked with him. At that time the deceased had a revolver and bandolier containing bullets. The deceased accompanied the appellant. Both had a short conversation. Azam Ali was intrigued by this and asked Imam Ali, Bashir and Hanif to follow them, in order to find out where they had gone. Azam Ali was told that the appellant still suspected the deceased of illicit liasion with Mat. Guddoo. Imam Ali had a torch. The party heard shrieks and in the light of torch they saw that the appellant was trying to stab the deceased with a Chhuri and the deceased was trying to ward off the blow. It is alleged that within the sight of the witnesses, the appellant inflicted two injuries with the Chhuri in the abdomen of Shabbir, who fell down. The persons present stepped forward. The appellant then removed the revolver of the deceased and threatened them. None, therefore, came close to him and the appellant managed to escape. He took the revolver as well as the bandolier with him which had bullets.

3. Muhammad Ishaque Sub‑Inspector after recording the report reached the spot, found the dead body lying there which was sent to Okara mortuary. The Police Officer noticed blood on the Bhoosa. He took some Bhoosa into possession as well as scrappings of blood from the Sohaga. The appellant was arrested on 25‑6‑1976. His shirt and Chaddar were stained with blood. The Police Officer, therefore, took those into possession. As the appellant was injured, the Sub‑Inspector prepared his injury statement and got him medically examined.

4. Doctor Shabbir Suleman, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Okara performed the post‑mortem and found four incised wounds and one abrasion on the dead body. Injuries Nos. 1 and 2, were incised wounds 1" x horizontal abdomen deep, on right side of abdomen, about 6" below and medial to right nipple and 1" x on the left side of abdomen, about 4" above and lateral to umbilicus, respectively, were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

5. The appellant was examined by Dr. Muhammad Siddique Medical Officer, Municipal Hospital, Renalakhurd, on 25‑6‑1976. He had three incised wounds of different diamensions on different parts of the body. According to the doctor, the injuries were simple and had been caused by sharp‑edged weapon with the duration of 36 to 48 hours.

6. The appellant denied to have killed Shabbir, disowned the clothes and said that the Chhuri did not belong to him. He ascribed the case to false implication. When question "how do you explain injuries on your person", the appellant said:‑ "I was employed as a labourer in a Cotton Ginning Factory where I sustained these injuries with an iron Patri while opening bales of cotton." While pleading innocence the appellant declined to produce any evidence in defence.

7. Prosecution produced Muhammad Bashir and Imam Ali as eye witnesses. Muhammad Bashir had first deposed about motive and then said that he, Imam Ali and Hanif went after the appellant and the deceased, when the former took the latter aside. When they were out of the village Abadi they heard shrieks. Imam Ali had a torch. He threw light and they saw the appellant armed with Chhuri, who was trying to stab the deceased. He noticed two injuries being inflicted by the appellant with the Chhuri in the abdomen. An attempt was made to catch hold of the appellant. As by then he had taken the revolver, he threatened the complainant party to kill. Imam Ali's version is the same as that of Muhammad Bashir.

8. The sole question to be considered is whether the ocular evidence is strong enough to maintain the conviction. There appears to be no reason to disbelieve the ocular evidence. The defence has not brought anything on the record to show that the eye‑witnesses were, in any way, hostile to the appellant. In addition to the ocular evidence there is other strong circumstantial evidence as well in the form of recovery of blood‑stained clothes of the appellant and Chhuri which was found to be stained with human blood. Blood was also found at the venue. However, the only thing which goes in favour of the appellant, is that none of the witnesses heard as to what transpired between the deceased and the appellant before the former was attacked. The deceased had five injuries in all, out of which two were found to be grievous and the others were simple. I am, therefore, of the view that the B conviction of the appellant should have been under section 304(1), P.P.C. rather than under section 302, P.P.C. and I accordingly alter his conviction. The appellant was also convicted under section 379 P. P. C. I maintain his conviction. The appellant is behind the bars since 25‑6‑1976, I think the sentence already undergone under both the counts will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice and I order accordingly. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. S. G. D. Sentence reduced.