2005 PLP 1657 (YLR)

The learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the case of Ghulam Rasul and 3 others v. The State 1988 SCMR 557; Mehmood Ahmad and 3 others v. The State and another 1995 SCMR 127; Khadim Hussain v. The State 1985 SCMR 721 and Shabbir Ahmad and 4 others v. The State 1972 PCr.LJ 310 to contend that in the circumstances of the present case, it was not possible to pinpoint the involvement of the appellants. He further submitted that the statements of Muhammad Boota P.W.12 and Altaf Ahmad, P.W.13 were not sufficient to prove the identity of the appellants at the initial stage. Regarding P.W.12, it is contended that the said witness does not state to have recognized the appellants at the time of occurrence. He also submitted that non-production of Saleem mentioned in the statement of P.W.13 would also militate against the prosecution.

9. On the other hand, it has vehemently been contended by the learned counsel for the complainant and the State that this was a case of promptly lodged F.I.R. and that there was no occasion for the false implication of the appellants in the occurrence. No enmity has been brought out between the complainant party and the appellants on the record. More importantly, it is submitted that crime empties recovered from the spot adequately matched with the crime weapons used by the appellants and that, unimpeachable evidence of the prosecution witnesses in this regard proved the guilt of the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. It is further contended that the ocular evidence, is fully corroborated by the medical evidence which included the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory. It was concluded that the occurrence took place while the complainant party was traveling in a motor car and the offence attributed to the appellants was grave and heinous in, character which resulted in the murder of two innocent persons.

10. In the light of these submissions made at the bar and evaluating them with the perusal of the material on the record, we find that the F.I.R. in question was indeed lodged promptly at 9-30 p.m. on the date of occurrence viz. 19-2-1996. The account rendered by the complainant in the F.I.R. Exh.P.R. is given in sufficient detail. The mere fact that no intention of the complainant party to falsely involve any person, indeed in such cases of Highway, robbery/dacoity, it is hardly ever expected that the accused would be previously known to the complainant party. It is not denied that the occurrence as alleged did take place and that as a result of the occurrence, two innocent lives were lost.

11. The occurrence which took place in the manner stated in the F.I.R. is amply proved by the ocular account rendered by the complainant P. W .10, Mst. Rizwana the injured witness P.W.11. Nothing turns upon the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that it was a dark night occurrence or that the accused, were not named in the F.I.R. there is no cogent evidence put forward by the appellants to persuade us to disbelieve the statements recorded by P.W.12 and P.W.13. The corroboration of the manner of occurrence as given in the F.I.R. viz. that a Bicycle was thrown in the front of the motor car to stop it is fully supported by the statement of P. W.12 and the recovery of Bicycle from the spot. This P.W. corroborates the factum of death of two deceased persons as well as injuries to the injured. Altaf Ahmad P. W.13 clearly identified the appellants and has also stated the reason of being acquainted with the appellants. Nothing much has been elicited from the cross examination of P.W.12 or P.W.13 which could detract from the efficacy of their statements.

12. As regards the corroboration of the prosecution case against the appellants Liaquat Ali and Abdul Shakoor is concerned, an identification parade was duly conducted by Muhammad Azam Awan, Judicial Magistrate P.W.15. He has categorically stated that on 5-8-1996, the identification parade was held under his supervision. He stated that 14 other persons along with the accused Liaquat Ali and Abdul Shakoor were included for the purpose of identification parade and the complainant Tanvir Ahmad, Mst. Tahira Perveen, Mst. Rizwana Naseer, Mst. Nasreen and Muhammad Boota identified the said appellants. From the perusal of the said statement, we do not find any such irregularity which would vitiate the proceedings of the identification process.

13. We have also placed the ocular account in juxta-position with the medical evidence recorded by the respective Medical Officers (P. W. 6 and P. W. 9). P.W.6 found the following injuries on the person of Mst. Tahira Bibi:- Injuries (1) A fire-arm wound of entry with inverted margins 1 c.m. x 1 c.m, x DNP on front of right side abdomen 6 c.m. below an right from umbilicus. Corresponding holes were present on Qameez and Banian which were also blood stained, Shalwar was also blood stained. (2) A fire-arm wound of entry with inverted margins 3 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m. x through and through on inner side of right fore-arm upper part with a fire-arm wound of exit 3-1/2 c.m. x 2 c.m on outer side of right fore-arm upper part. Corresponding holes proceedings present on shirt which was also blood-stained. He also reported the following injuries on the person of Mst. Rizwana injured:- Injuries "A lacerated rue-arm wound of entry 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. x brain matter coming out of brain on back of head. (Note:- The condition of the patient was serious)." The post-mortem examination upon the dead bodies of Mst. Rashidan Bibi and Hafeez Ahmad was conducted by P.W.9, who reported as under:- Rashidan Bibi (1) A fire-arm wound entry 2 c.m. x 2 c.m on the back of right side of head, 7 c.m. from Pinna of right ear at its lower level, on exploration the projectile ruptured the scalp, fractured the right side of occipital bone entered the cravial cavity then it ruptured the membrains, both the hemispheres of brains through and through directing upwards and to the left side and bullet was found from the cranial cavity in contact with the left parietal bone. Cranium and spinal cord were injured. Opinion In my opinion the cause of death in this case was shock due to haemorrhage and brain damage resulting from injury No.1 inflicted by fire-arm weapon which was. ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Hafeez Ahmad (1) A fire-arm wound of entry 3 c.m. x 2-1/2 c .m. on the back of the left side of head 3-1/2 c.m. back of left ear at its middle level, brain matter was coming out of the wound. On exploration the projectile ruptured the scalp, fractured the occipital bone on left side then ruptured the membranes with both hemispheres of brain matter through and through directing to the left side and upwards. A D-shaped metallic foreign body was found from the brain matter, there was' also fracture on left parietal bone. (2) A grazine fire-arm wound 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. skin deep, front of left elbow, no bony injury was seen on exploration. Cranium and Spinal Cord were injured. Opinion In my opinion the cause of death was shock due to haemorrhage and brain damage resulting from injuries Nos.1 and 2 inflicted by fire-arm weapon which were ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature collectively, while Injury No.1 was sufficient to cause death individually as well. The ocular account is fully supported and corroborated by the medical evidence. "

14. In view of the foregoing, we find that there is ample corroborative evidence against the appellants Liaquat Ali and Abdul Shakoor on the basis of which the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced these two appellants in the judgment in question. After a careful perusal of the If evidence we are not persuaded to take a view any different from the one expressed by the learned trial Court in respect of the appellants Liaquat Ali and Abdul Shakoor. Resultantly, we uphold and sustain the judgment of conviction and sentence against these two appellants.

15. As regards the case of Noor, Ahmad third appellant, we find that the statement of P. W.13 is not corroborated by any other material on the record. No identification parade has been conducted in respect of this appellant. It would thus, be unsafe to rely upon the sole uncorroborated statement of P.W.13. We have indeed noticed that while no cross-examination has been conducted upon P.W.13 in respect of his nominating Liaquat Ali and Abdul Shakoor, the veracity of the statement of P.W.13 was questioned through cross examination in respect of Noor Ahmad.

16. It would be in the interest of safe administration of justice to hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of appellant Noor Ahmad beyond all shadow of doubt.

17. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal to the extent of Liaquat Ali and Abdul Shako or is dismissed and the sentence of death passed by the learned trial Court is confirmed. To the extent of Noor Ahmad the Criminal Appeal is allowed and his conviction and sentence is set aside. The death sentence in respect of Noor Ahmad is not confirmed. He is directed to be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Order accordingly. H.B.T./L-123/L. Order accordingly.