GULZAR Versus THE STATE
Gulzar aged 12 years and 7 months (appellant) alongwith Pariah Ali, Bagh Ali, Muhammad Hussain, Muhammad Rafique, Yaqoob Ali and Ayub Ali (co-accused) were tried for the murder of Abdul Sattar by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, who vide his impugned judgment, dated 30-9-1990 convicted and sentenced Gulzar under section 304, P.P.C. to undergo 10 years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000 in default whereof to suffer further R.I. for 2 years. The fine, if realized, half of it was directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The co-accused were acquitted of the charge. The appellant has come up in appeal to assail his conviction and sentence. The complainant has preferred the connected criminal revision against all the accused. Both shall be disposed of by this judgment together.
2. The prosecution case is that Muhammad Amin complainant (P.W.2) on 30-6-1989 made statement Exh.P.B. at 7-00 p.m. at Islami Colony to the effect that on 30-6-1989 at 6-00 p.m. he alongwith Muhammad Hanif (P.W.4), Muhammad Yasin (P.W.3) residents of Adda 13-Soling while standing in the Chowk were talking when Abdul Sattar deceased, real brother of the complainant, passed from nearby for taking the ice to the house and when reached at some distance near the house of Panah All (acquitted co-accused), from where Panah Ali, Bagh Ali, Muhammad Hussain, Muhammad Rafique, Yaqoob Ali, Ayub Ali (empty handed) and the appellant Gulzar armed with a Chhuri reached. Yaqoob Ali and Ayub Ali (acquitted co-accused) raised Lalkara and exhorted the co-accused to catch hold of Abdul Sattar and teach him a lesson of having illicit relations with Mst. Shakila, on which Bagh Ali, Pariah Ali, Muhammad Hussain, Muhammad Rafique (acquitted co-accused) caught hold of Abdul Sattar, deceased. Gulzar alias Bhutto appellant inflicted a Chhuri blow on the chest of Abdul Sattar deceased who fell down and while he was falling, the appellant gave another Chhuri blow on his back. The P.Ws. witnessing the occurrence reached the spot. The accused decamped and the deceased succumbed to his injuries at the spot.
3. Leaving behind the P.Ws., P.W.2 Muhammad Amin was proceeding to the police station when P.W.11 Muhammad Aziz S.I./S.H.O. met him, who recorded his statement Exh.P.B. and sent the same to the police station, where formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1 was recorded by Muhammad Hanif H.C. (P.W.9). The appellant alongwith the acquitted co-accused were challaned and sent up for trial. A charge under sections 148, 302/149, P.P.C. was framed, to which they denied and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution examined 12 P.Ws. in all to substantiate its case. The appellant made his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. and has stated that the police had fabricated the story in order to aggravate the offence. The P.Ws. are related inter se and were not present at the spot. He also stated that he had himself produced blood-stained Chhuri P.1 before the police on the day of occurrence. The acquitted co-accused had pleaded innocence and their non- presence at the spot.
5. P.W.2 Muhammad Amin complainant, P.W.3 Muhammad Yasin and P.W.4 Muhammad Hanif stated the ocular account Muhammad Yasin (P.W.3) is the maternal-cousin of the deceased and the complainant and Muhammad Hanif (P.W.4) is the sister's husband of the deceased. They are closely related. In regard to recovery, it was disputed in a way that it was not effected during interrogation, but the report of the Chemical Examiner and the Radiologist Exhs.P.J. and P.K., respectively were positive. Dr. Tariq Majid (P.W.8) conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries on his person: --
(1) A stab wound present on left chest in 6th intercospal space just lateral to sternum, spindle in shape, 2.5 x 1.5 c.m. in size, blind deep.
(2) Another stab wound on left side of back of chest just lateral to vertebral column at the level of 9th thoracic vertebrae 1.5 x 0.5 c.m. in size, blind deep.
In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was injury to vital organs, heart and liver which caused excessive bleeding. This is due to injury No.1. Both injuries were ante-mortem in nature. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was within 30 minutes and between death and post-mortem was 24 hours.
6. The learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant and acquitted the co-accused vide its impugned judgment.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The trial Court had not believed the prosecution evidence and had held that the appellant had committed murder of the deceased on grave and sudden provocation at the time when Mst. Shakila had called the appellant for her help. The murder was the result of spontaneous call for help and there was no premeditation.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not seriously challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant. He has prayed for leniency in the matter of sentence. The appellant was arrested on 7-7-1989 and the counsel for the parties have calculated that the appellant has remained as under-trial and convict in the jail for a period of 3 years 6 months and 15 days. A In my view the sentence of 5 years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.5,000 in default whereof to suffer 6 months' R.I. shall meet the ends of justice. Order accordingly. The appellant shall also be extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The connected Criminal Revision No.82 of 1990/BWP has no merit and is dismissed.
N.H.Q./G-185/L Sentence reduced.