1986 P Cr (PLP)

5. As for the main occurrence, it is stated that on the eventful day, Javed Iqbal (P.W. 9) son of Shafqat Ali accompanied by Muhammad Mubeen alias Pappu deceased came at the shop of Javed Iqbal (P.W. 8) son of Muhammad lqbal, which is situate at Garah Road, Mandi Baha‑ud‑Din and asked the latter to accompany them to Nai Abadi School Mohallah, to see their common friend Jehangir. At about 6‑20 p.m. when they reached near New Jail, the appellant Bashir Ahmed armed with a Churri emerged at the scene and raised Lalkara that Muhammad Mubeen alias Pappu deceased would not be allowed to go alive. Muhammad Mubeen alias Pappu deceased then ran for his life towards the south in a street. Bashir Ahmad appellant chased him, caught hold of him and gave number of Chhuri blows on his person. Javed Iqbal (P.W. 8) son of Muhammad lqbal tried to intervene and save Muhammad Mubeen alias Pappu but the appellant dealt a Chhuri blow to him as well, hitting him on his left arm. On the alarm raised by Muhammad Mubeen alias Pappu deceased, Muhammad Siddique (P.W. 10) was also attracted to the spot. He too besides Javed Iqbal (P.W. 8) and Javed Iqbal (P.W. 9) witnessed the occurrence After receiving the injuries at the hand of the appellant, Muhammad Mubeen alias pappu fell down and died on the spot. Bashir Ahmad appellant ran away alongwith the Chhuri.

6. The appellant was arrested on 14‑3‑1977. In fact he was produced before Mushtaq Ahmed S.I./S.H.O. (P.W. 11) by Ghulam Rasul (P.W.3). He was then wearing blood‑stained clothes. Mushtaq Ahmad (P.W. 11) got removed his blood‑stained shirt P.7 and blood‑stained Shalwar P. 8 from the person of the appellant. These clothes were secured vide memo. Exh. P.D., which was attested by Ghulam Rasul (P.W. 4) and Abdul Hamid (not produced) besides Mushtaq Ahmad S.I., blood‑‑stained Chhuri P. 6 was also produced by the appellant at the time of his arrest, which too was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P.C., in the presence of the afore‑mentioned Ghulam Rasul (P.W. 4) and Abdul Hamid. As per Serologist's reports Exhs. P.Q. and P.S., the result in regard to the stains of blood, respectively, of the clothes of the appellant and the Chhuri allegedly recovered from him is positive.

7. Dr. Nazir Ahmad Anwar (P.W. 5), the then Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Phalia, performed the autopsy on the dead body of Muhammad Mubeen alias Pappu deceased on 14‑3‑1977 at 6‑30 a.m. He noticed 12 incised wounds on the dead body of the deceased, out of which six have been described as penetrating incised wounds. He opined that death of the deceased has occurred due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries 1, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He further opined that all the injuries were caused with sharp‑edged pointed weapon and were ante‑mortem. This witness also medically examined Javed Iqbal (P.W. 8) on 14‑3‑1977 at 1‑00 a.m. and found an incised wound, 3 " x " ", over the medial‑side of, left forearm. This injury was simple and was caused with sharp‑edged pointed weapon.

8. The prosecution in all examined at the trial 11 witnesses, out of whom Javed Iqbal (P.W. 8) son of Muhammad Iqbal, Javed Iqbal (P.W. 9) son of Shafqat Ali and Muhammad Siddique (P.W. 10), testified as eye‑witnesses to furnish the ocular account of the prosecution version. Ghulam Rasul (P.W. 4) is the witnesses of recovery of blood‑stained clothes of the appellant and that of blood‑stained Churri from him. Mushtaq Ahmad (P.W. 11) S.I./S.H.O. testified as the Investigating Officer, while Dr. Nazir Ahmad Anwar (P.W. 5) disclosed about the post‑mortem report of the deceased and medical examination of Javed Iqbal (P.W. 8). The rest of the witnesses, more or less, are formal ones.

9. Plea of the appellant is of denial and false implication. In reply to question No. 8 "why this case against you?" he stated:‑-- "Javed Iqbal son of Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Mubeen alias Pappu were committing unnatural offence with Jehangir in a garden near the Courts. I reprimanded them, whereupon they got annoyed and later on falsely implicated me in this case. A constable came to my house at mid‑night and took me to the police station." No evidence in defence has, however, been produced by the appellant.

10. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Javed Iqbal (P.W. 8) was not in fact present and that the injury on his person is belied by the fact as there was no corresponding cut on his shirt, although he was admittedly wearing shirt of long sleeves at that time. We have noticed that Dr. Nazir Ahmad Anwar had opined that injuries on the person of the deceased were caused by a sharp‑edged pointed weapon. The same opinion regarding the weapon of offence has been expressed by the witnesses in regard to the injury received by Javed Iqbal (P.W. 8). There is nothing on the record to show as to whether Javed lqbal (P.W. 8), had rolled his sleeves at the time of occurrence or had buttoned up the same on that occasion. If he had left his sleeves open then the question of there being a corresponding cut on the shirt does not arise.

11. It has next been urged that in view of the nature of injury on the left arm of Javed Iqbal (P.W. 8), the same could be a self‑suffered one. Dr. Nazir Ahmad Anwar has opined that the injury was most probably not self‑suffered. He further opined that this injury was not self‑inflicted and neither it was caused with a friendly hand. He has expressed reasons for his opinion thus expressed by him.

12. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that there were strained relations between Javed lqbal (P.W. 8) and the appellant; none of the relatives of the deceased has come forward as a witness. Javed Iqbal (P.W. 8) son of Muhammad Iqbal and Javed Iqbal (P.W. 9) son of Shafqat Ali have given contradictory replies to the question as to in which class they were studying and that the story gives a ring of concoction. We have deeply considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. Minor contradictions are always forthcoming the testimonies of truthful witnesses. The eye‑witnesses are admittedly not related to the deceased. The occurrence is stated to have taken place near New Jail, Mandi Baha‑ud‑Din. The relatives of the deceased were admittedly not present there. They were, therefore, riot expected to testify as eye‑witnesses. This is a single accused case. There is no reason apparent from the‑records for the substitution of the appellant for the real culprit. The First Information Report has been promptly lodged at the police station and there is no reason to A reject the testimonies of eye‑witnesses, particularly that of Javed Iqbal (P.W. 8), whose injury furnishes judicial certainty of his presence at the time of the occurrence.

13. In the light of above discussion, we find that the charge has been fully established against the appellant without any doubt. His conviction under section 302, P.P.C. is, therefore, maintained. He has brutally murdered a young man and there is no extenuating circumstance warranting imposition of alternate sentence of imprisonment for life. In this view of the matter the sentence of death awarded to the appellant is also maintained. His appeal is, therefore, dismissed and the sentence of death is accordingly confirmed. S.A. Appeal dismissed.