1975 PLP 289 (SCMR)

S. 302‑Murder‑Motive‑Intention‑‑Murders often committed for no motive or on minor pretexts‑Determination of intention Can be spelt out from all ambient circumstances taken together. It is common knowledge that murders have been committed for no motive worth the name and at any rate on mere minor pretexts. No hard and fast rule could be laid down in regard to the determination of intention which can be spelt out from all the ambient circumstances taken together. A host of them including the highhandedness of the petitioner; the choice of the weapon of offence by him, the seat of injury and the damage done by it unmistakably establish the intention to kill or at least the knowledge that death could in all probability follow in consequence thereof. Muhammad Bashir v. The Crown P L D 1950 Lah. 185 ref. M. Nazirullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan instructed by Amirzada Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date : f hearing ; 27th January 1975. MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J.‑Wazir Gul petitioner was tried by the Sessions Judge, Peshawar, for having stabbed to death one Sawal Masih On 2C‑12‑1971 at 10‑30 a. m. Ore conviction under section 102, P. P. C.. the petitioner was sentenced to death which was confirmed by a D. B. of the Peshawar High Court, vide order dated 19‑9‑1974. This order is the subject- matter of the petition, for special leave to appeal, 2. According to the First Information Report lodged by none Less than the deceased himself, who on receipt of two kr.T,1: injuries at the bands of the petitioner walked up to the Police Station at a. distance of one mile from the shop, the petitioner armed with a knife and accompanied by an unknown person visited the shop of the deceased on 20‑12‑1971 at 10‑30 a. m. and tried to extract a loan from him. On the refusal of the deceased, the stranger caught hold of him while the petitioner gave him two knife injuries and dragged him out of his shop. They then fled away. On the report of the deceased wherein he mentioned two eve‑witnesses Musa Khan (P. QV. 6) and Khanzada Gul, who was given up as won over, the case was initially register ed under section 324, P. P. C. Medical evidence of the deceased revealed two injuries, one a stab wound on the left lumber region on the front side x and the other an incised wound on the left thigh x . Sawal Masih succumbed to the injuries on 23‑12‑1971 at 2‑10 p. m. in the Hospital, whereupon the offence was converted to one under sect on 302, P. P. C. Before the trial was held, Doctor Inayat examined the deceased, while alive, proceeded to the United Kingdom for higher studies. His medico‑legal report was, however, proved by his colleague Sher Bahadur Khan, who was conversant with his handwriting. Another development which took place was that Madad Khan, A. S. I. who had recorded the F. I. R. ore the dictation of the deceased was killed on 13-1-1971 and accordingly his statement be fore the Committing Magistrate had to be transferred to the Sessions file. According to the post‑Mortem examination report, death had occurred due to shock and peritonitis caused by stab injuries to the ilium and perforation of the intestines. 3. The petitioner absconded and was arrested on 4‑4‑1972 after he was declared a proclaimed offender. 4. As stated earlier, Khanzada Gul one of the two eye‑witnesses mentioned in the F. 1. R, was given un at the trial as having been won over while Musa Khan (P W. 6) the other eye‑witness, turner hostile and was allowed to be cross‑examined on the request of the Public Prosecutor. His testimony was. however, not considered of much avail to the prosecution and was excluded from consideration. The, petitioner denied the allegations and tried to explain away his abscondence on the pretext of having gone to Jalalabad:' (Afghanistan) to visit his sister and attributed his false implication to his enemies in the locality. He led no evidences in defence. 5. The F. I. R. which was later treated as dying declaration, supported by the medical evidence and the circumstances of the abscondence of the petitioner was considered by the Sessions Judge to be good en‑ugh to bring home the guilt to the petitioner. The same view was upheld in appeal/ reference by the High Court. 6. In support of the petition for leave, learned counsel tried to argue on the basis Of Hayatullah v. The State (1959 P Cr. L J 724) and Twaib Khan and another v. The State (P L D 1970 S C 13) that the deceased not being under immediate apprehension of death at the time of lodging the report, the same could not be treated as dying declaration, and it was next contended on the basis of Muhammad Bashir v. The Crown (P LD 1950 Lah. 185) that in the absence of any previous bad blood between the petitioner and the deceased the intention to kill could not be spelt out from the circumstances of the case particularly when the case was initially registered under section 324, P. P. C. The contentions are devoid of sub stance. In the first instance, the law does not insist that for the purpose of being treated as a dying declaration, the statement should have been made under immediate apprehension of death, we cannot import into the statutory provision any such extraneous limitation. In the absence of a statutory requirement in this regard, the last incriminating statement made by the deceased could be legitimately treated as dying declaration as was rightly done in the instant case. It was a quite unembellished and straight forward statement having a ring of truth. 7. As regards the second point of the two knife injuries at least one was given on the vital part of the body causing perforation of intestines and leading to development of peritonitis. From the nature and the seat of the injury the, intention to kill could be clearly spelt out. It is common knowledge that murders have been committed for no motive worth the name and at any rate on mere minor pretexts. No hard and fast rule could be laid down in regard to the determination of intention which can be spelt out from all the ambient circumstances taken together. A host of them including the highhandedness of the petitioner ; the choice of the weapon of offence by him, the seat of injury and the damage done by it unmistakably establish the intention to kill or at least the knowledge that death could in all probability follow in consequence thereof. 8. No fault can be found with the High Court's judgment which proceeds on a proper appreciation of the evidence and correct application of the relevant principles of law to the facts and circumstances of the case leaving no room for the interference of this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.