1984 PLP 1435 (MLD)

3. Dr. Shahid Hanif Casualty Medical Officer, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, medically examined Maulana Syed Muhammad Jafar Zaidi on 3-11-1980, at 8-00 p.m. The patient was semi-conscious and in confused state of mind. The reaction of the pupils was sluggish. Pulse was 100 per minute. Blood pressure was 130/85. The doctor noticed the following injuries on his person: (1) Lacerated wound 4 c.m.x j c.m. on centre of forehead with diffused swelling around. (2) Lacerated wound 4 c.m. x c.m. on the central part of scalp with swelling around. (3) Lacerated wound 4 c.m. x c.m. on left oociput with swelling around. (4) Lacerated wound 3 c.m. x I c.m. on left occipital part of scalp. It was Y shaped with swelling around. (5) Pain, tenderness, deformity present on right fore-arm at the middle part, with a complaint of pain above the wrist. X-ray of scalp and fore-arm was advised. The injuries were kept under observation They were caused with blunt edged weapon and were fresh.

4. Dr. Sabir Ali conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Maulana Syed Muhammad Jafar Zaidi, on 7-11-1980, at 7-15 a.m. He noticed five injuries. He found fracture of right frontal bone. It was extending to the left side and going towards the left parietal bone under injury No.1. Strip of bone under this injury had gone inside causing laceration in the frontal part of the brain. There was fracture of the skull behind the parietal eminence under injuries Nos.2 and

3. Strip of bone under these wounds had gone inside causing laceration of the brain on both sides. There was bleeding above and under the covering of the brain. Injuries Nos.1,2 and 3 were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The time between injuries and death was about four days and between death and post-mortem about five hours.

5. Syed Muhammad Azhar (P;W,g),. Zil-i-Husnain (P.W.10) and Mukhtar Ahmad Shaheen (P.W.11) were examined as eye-witnesses. They fully supported the prosecution case. They stated before the trial Court that they saw the appellant inflicting blows to the deceased with Tesi. Zil-i-Husnain remained with Maulana Syed Muhammad Jafar Zaidi while other two eye-witnesses Syed Muhammad Azhar and Mukhtar Ahmad Shaheen and some others chased the appellant. Muhammad Azhar, and Mukhtar Ahmad Shaheen further stated that they were chasing the appellant, police party arrived there in a police van and the appellant was apprehended near the spot and blood-stained Tesi recovered. Muhammad Azhar complainant and Mukhtar Ahmad Shaheen attested recovery memo. P.G. pertaining to blood-stained Tesi. They also attested the recovery memo. and blood-stained earth. Tesi was found to be stained with human blood. Muhammad Ashraf (P.W.10) stated that on 13-11-1980, the appellant had purchased Tesi P.7 from him for Rupees sixteen, Muhammad Ijaz Butt (P.W.15) stated that the appellant got Tesi welded from his shop on 3-11-1980 and made payment of Rupees two.

6. Ch. Muhammad Yaqub Magistrate Section 30 Lahore (P.W.18)stated that on 10-11-1980, an application Exh. P.S. was produced before him by Muhammad Aslam Inspector Police for recording the statement of Munawar Ali under section 164/364 Cr.P.C. He further stated that after observing the formalities, he recorded the confessional statement of the appellant Exh. P.T. and gave certificate Exh. P.T./1 underneath it. Muhammad Aslam Inspector also supported the prosecution case by stating that he had apprehended the-appellant near the spot, recorded the statement of the complainant and conducted investigation. Rest were the formal witnesses.

7. Munawar Ali was examined by the learned Sessions Judge under section 342 Cr.P.C. The appellant stated that he did not remember if on 3-11-1980 he purchased Tesi P.7 from the shop of Muhammad Ashraf P.W. for Rupees sixteen. He also did not remember if on the said, date he got Tesi P.7 welded from Muhammad Ijaz Butt P.W. He denied that on 3-11-1980, at 7-45 p.m. he knocked at the house of the deceased. He did not remember if on 3-11-1980 at 7-45 p.m. he caused injuries to the deceased with Tesi. He denied to have run away from the spot. He did not admit that he was over-powered by Azhar, Mukhtar Ahmad Shaheen and others. About the confessional statement he stated that he made the same under police pressure. He admitted his signature under the confessional statement Exh.P.T. He could not say as to why the case was made out against him. He professed innocence. He wanted to produce Sher Afgan Magistrate in defence but later gave him up.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had not committed the murder; that the appellant was apprehended on the basis of suspicion; that the appellant was kept in Shahi Qilah and interrogated by various agencies such as Special Branch, Intelligence Branch and Inter-Services Intelligence; that the confessional statement was procured under coercion; that the appellant had no motive to commit the murder.

9. The appellant was resident of Faisalabad. He was not even known to the complainant. There could be no motive for false implication. The eye-witnesses were absolutely dis-interested. Muhammad Azhar complainant was a natural witness. Similarly, Zil-i-Husnain and Mukhtar Ahmad Shaheen were natural witnesses. The former lived in the house of the deceased as tenant while the latter also resided in the same locality. Muhammad Azhar complainant and Mukhtar Ahmad Shaheen chased the appellant to some distance. In the meantime, police party, which included Muhammad Aslam S.H.O., reached there in police jeep. The appellant was apprehended and blood-stained Tesi recovered from his possession. The learned counsel for the appellant had nothing much to argue in this appeal. lie could not successfully challenge the statements of the three eye-witnesses who made consistent statements and fully corroborated each other. Not a word could be urged against their testimony. The appellant was produced before Muhammad Yaqub Magistrate, on 10-11-1980, at 2-45 p.m. The Magistrate sent the police officers out of Court room. The hand-cuffs of the appellant were removed. The appellant was informed that he was before a Magistrate and he was not bound to make statement. He was further told that if he made any statement that could , be used against him. He was also informed that he would be sent to judicial lock up. The appellant was made to sit in a corner of the Court room. He was given time to consider over the matter: He was again called at 3-35 p.m. He was informed for the second time that he was not bound to make statement and he could make any statement which he wished. He was conveyed that he would not be handed over to the police and statement which he would make could be used against him. He was questioned if he wanted to make statement. He replied that he wanted to make statement. The Magistrate after satisfying himself recorded the statement of Munawar Ali Exh.P.T. The appellant mentioned in the said statement that he had killed Maulvi Muhammad Jafar taking him to be as Mufti Jafar Hussain. He had issued Fatwa over Tabarra in the convention. In the said statement he had confessed to have killed the deceased. He further admitted that he was apprehended by the witnesses and the police. The Magistrate gave a certificate that he believed that it was a voluntary confession. There could be no reason to doubt the statement of Muhammad Yaqub Magistrate. He could not record an incorrect statement at the instance of the police. The appellant had taken up the plea that his confessional statement was obtained under coercion. From evidence on record, we are of the view that it was a voluntary confession and A recorded after observing due formalities. After examining the record carefully, we hold that the case against the appellant stood proved beyond any doubt. He was rightly convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. We do not find any extenuating circumstance for imposing lesser sentence. The appeal is dismissed and the sentence of death is confirmed. S. G. D. Appeal dismissed.