MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus State

KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J .---This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.734 of 2002 directed against the judgment, dated 14-3-2002 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, whereby he convicted the appellant under section 337-A (i), P.P.C. and was sentenced 2 years' R.I., under section 311, P.P.C. he was sentenced to undergo 14 years' R.I. with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Brief facts as narrated by the complainant in the F.I.R. are that on the day of occurrence she along with her brother .Aslam was standing near the outer door of the house while Ashraf and her husband Ghulam Sarwar were in the Baithak. Nawaz accused came in the Baithak. Ghulam Sarwar deceased and Muhammad Nawaz quarrelled with each other. Muhammad Nawaz accused/appellant drew a Barcha from his Nepha and tried to make a blow at her husband Ghulam Sarwar but brother of the complainant Muhammad Ashraf intervened to rescue him and the accused gave three successive Barcha blows at the head of her brother Muhammad Ashraf P.W. The appellant gave Barcha blow at the head of her husband and separated a part of his head. Her husband fell down and the accused again inflicted Barcha blows repeatedly on the deceased person. Mst. Fareeda daughter of complainant and Muhammad Aslam his brother intervened to rescue her husband but the accused gave a Barcha blow of blunt side on her right hand, head and eye brow and on the shoulder. The deceased succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. The motive was a money dispute.

After getting information about the occurrence the local police completed all the necessary formalities and then Ahmad: Yar S.-I. along with his subordinates proceeded to the spot.' He prepared the injury statement Exh. P. H., inquest report Exh.P.J. He secured the blood-stained earth vide memo. Exh.P.M. Last-worn clothes were also received by him vide memo. Exh.P.A. On 19-12-2001 he arrested the accused/appellant who vide recovery memo. Exh.P.B. got recovered Barcha P.1. Ultimately he completed the investigation and submitted the challan.

4. Prosecution in order to prove its case has produced as many as 12 witnesses including doctor, I.O., eye-witnesses and other formal witnesses. After tendering in evidence report of Chemical Examiner, Exh.P.E., learned S.P.P. closed the prosecution evidence. Thereafter statement of the appellant/accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. in which he pleaded his innocence. Learned trial Court after taking into consideration the every aspect of the case and hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive against the appellant. He further submits that motive comes to an end when the father of the appellant who is deceased in this case had conceded to make the payment then there was no need on the part of the appellant to commit .the murder of the deceased who was father of the appellant. Learned counsel further adds that initially attack was allegedly made by the appellant on Muhammad Ashraf P.W. Learned counsel submits that appellant has no intention to give injuries to the deceased, that the appellant also received three incised injuries and one of them is on his head and the prosecution has not given any explanation whatsoever. Learned counsel submits that appellant was arrested on 19-12-2001 and he was medically examined as per documentary evidence on the same very day, that the two injured ladies namely Fareeda and Sahibzadi were examined four days after the occurrence i.e. on 12-10-2002 that it was not the case of the prosecution before the police that they had also .sustained the injuries in the occurrence, that according to the opinion of the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination deceased received injuries from two .different weapons.

6. Learned counsel submits that according to the prosecution, Barcha was recovered on the pointation of the appellant but there is no report of Chemical Examiner and that of Serologist in this regard. Lastly he submits that in view of the accumulative effect of the prosecution story it is a case under section 302-C, P.P.C. and not under section 311, P.P.C.

7. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that it was a case of promptly lodged F.I.R. In the instant case son has killed his father and also injured three P.Ws. Learned counsel submits that appellant has not taken the plea of right of self-defence either before the I.O. during the investigation or at the time of cross-examination as well as in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submits that the complainant has mentioned in the F.I.R., that the appellant also gave injuries on his person when he has lost his sense after giving injuries to his father. Learned counsel submits that he has given injury in such a forceful manner that the neck of his father was separated from his head, that two of the injuries on the person of the deceased are skin deep.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case according to the F.I.R. the appellant who is son of the deceased Ghulam Sarwar while armed with Barcha gave three injuries on the person of the deceased. Injury No.1 was so forceful that it separated the neck of the deceased from his head and the brain came out of the said injury. He has also caused injury to Muhammad Ashraf P.W. As far as injuries of Mst. Fareeda and Mst. Sahibzadi are concerned, I am not satisfied with this fact because there is no evidence about their injuries on the record. Moreover, they were examined four days after the occurrence and the doctor has given the duration in this regard within a week. Now this Court is left with the statement of Muhammad Ashraf who is star witness in this ease and has received three injuries. Muhammad Nawaz appellant though received injuries on his person but the same are explained in the F.I.R. The appellant has killed his father in a very very brutal manner in a broad-daylight occurrence. One injury caused by Muhammad Nawaz appellant was so forceful that it cut and separated the neck of the deceased from the head. Unfortunately no appeal against the acquit tal of the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C. has been filed either by the State or by the complainant himself. Appellant had never taken the plea of right of self-defence in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. or during the cross-examination of the eye-witness account. In view of the above circumstances, I am fully satisfied with the prosecution case that it was the appellant who had committed the murder of his father and caused injuries on the person of Muhammad Ashraf injured. In this view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. This appeal is dismissed. However, benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. is granted to the appellant.

H. B. T. /M-520/L Appeal dismissed.