1990SCMR1314 (PLP)

(5) A lacerated wound 1" outer to injury No.l having dimension 1" x 1/8" x skull cavity; (6) A lacerated wound 1" above injury No.3 having dimension 1/2" x 1/2" going deep into x skull cavity; (7) A lacerated wound on right side of head 3" above right car 1‑172" x 1/2" going deep x skill? cavity; (8) A lacerated wound on right side of face below right eye 1" x 1/4" going deep into tissues. (9) A lacerated wound on bony part of nose 1" x 1/6" x deep into nosal cavity; (10) An abrasion on upper lip 1‑1/4" x 1/2"; (11) Two incisors of upper jaw were missing; multiple abrasions on upper lip; each measuring about 1/2" x 1/4"; (12) Both eyes were black; (13) Clotted blood in both the ears, nose and mouth present.` According to the doctor all the injuries were sufficient to cause death individually as well as collectively.

6. The incident had occurred at about 7‑15 a.m. and the report was lodged at 8‑15 a.m. though the place of incident was at a distance of 18 kilometres from the police station. There is no allegation of enmity against the complainant. It was alleged that he was related to the deceased but this single fact does not affect the prosecution case. The enmity has been alleged by the accused against the deceased but this is a double‑edged weapon. The complainant has also stated in the complaint that there was a motive for committing this murder as the accused was annoyed with the deceased on his report made to the higher authorities against him. The statement of the complainant inspires confidence and this Solitary statement could be used against the accused. He is supported by Ghulam Akhtar (P.W.7) about the actual incident. There were thirteen injuries on the person of the deceased and four were grievous in nature.

7. Another piece of evidence connecting the petitioner with the crime is the recovery of weapon of offence at his instance. He was arrested on 31‑3‑1985 and the recovery had been effected on 1‑4‑1985. The weapon of offence was stained with human blood as is clear from the report of the Chemical Analyser. The medical evidence has supported the ocular testimony.' The witnesses have been cross‑examined at length but nothing has been brought out on record to discredit the testimony of these witnesses. There is no reason to falsely implicate the real culprit. Before the High Court, a request was made for the lesser sentence and the same was reduced by the High Court. The trial Court as well as the learned High Court have discussed the evidence in its true perspective. Therefore, the accused was rightly convicted. There is no force in this Jail Petition. The petition accordingly stands dismissed. OPINION OF SECOND JUDGE ABDUL HAFEEZ MIAN, J.‑‑I agree. The petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./G‑293/S. Petition dismissed.