1990 P Cr (PLP)

(3) An incised wound 0.3 c.m. x 0.2 c.m. at the back of left chest in the middle 2 c.m. away from vertebral column. The same doctor conducted post-mortem examination of Muhammad Riaz deceased on 23-7-1985 at 7-30 a.m. and found the following injuries on his person: (1) A penetrating wound 2.5 c.m. x 0.75 c.m. into chest cavity deep at the left side of neck 2 c.m. above the left clavicle (Collar Bone). (2) A lacerated wound 2 c.m. x 1.25 c.m. at the terminal part of right thumb of foot. In the opinion of doctor, death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury No.l, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The time between injuries and death was 1 to 2 hours and between the death and post-mortem examination was 10 to 15 hours. The accused were arrested on 24-7-1985. Both the accused led to the recovery of blood-stained Khanjars P.3 and P.4, which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.H./2 and Exh.P.1 on 27-7-1985. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses to establish its case The ocular account has been narrated in its material particulars by Ghulam Hussain P.W.7, Abid Hussain P.W.8 and Muhammad Mukhtar P.W.9 The last two witnesses namely, Mukhtar and Abid were also injured in the aforesaid incident. The presence of Mukhtar and Abid is established beyond any doubt from the record of this case. They have categorically deposed against the present two appellants. Their testimony is in line with the medical evidence. They have successfully withstood cross-examination and the defence failed to get anything out of it. When the accused were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. they denied the allegation levelled against them. However, Shafqat accused stated as under: "I have been falsely implicated. A few days prior to the occurrence I had passed the examination of ISSB at Kohat and was waiting for medical examination at Gujranwala Medical Board and on the day of occurrence I alongwith my other family members Le brother and parents had gone for the condolence of our paternal-aunt at Chak 9/J.B. Bhoewal when my sister Mst. Fakhran Bibi was all alone at our house in this Chak and in the early hours of the morning we received the information in that Chak that Muhammad Riaz deceased had entered our house and on the pretext of borrowing the match box and in that way when he reached near Mst. Fakhran Bibi he made an attempt to outrage her mostly and indulged in iridescent approach. It was resisted by Mst. Fakhran Bibi when she was already using the Chhuri for cutting the vegetable and she also received the injuries at the hands of Riaz deceased when he was bending upon her. On hearing the alarm of Mst. Fakhran Bibi certain persons of the neighbourhood and the two injured P.Ws. entered the house and grappled with each other and during that altercation the injured P.Ws. had also received the injuries and later on the complainant party falsely implicated me and my brother Javid in this case." He also produced Dr. Imtiaz Ahmad Gill as D.W.1, who had stated that he examined Mst. Fakhran Bibi sister of the accused and found the following injuries on her person: (1) An incised wound 4 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. into bone deep on the top of right side head. (2) A contusion mark 6 c.m. x 2 c.m. on the back middle part of chest. (3) An abrasion 1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. on back right ring ringer. (4) A contusion mark 5 c.m. x 2 c.m. on back right forearm. (5) A contusion mark 7 c.m. x 2 c.m. on front of right thigh. All the injuries according to the doctor were of simple nature. Injury No.l was caused by sharp-edged weapon while rest of the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that in this case F.I.R. has been concocted and does not inspire any confidence as the complainant Ghulam Hussain had not seen the occurrence. He argued that the absence of the name of the complainant in the inquest report Exh. P.O. goes a long way in establishing that he was not present at the scene of occurrence. The learned counsel contended that according to the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination, the dead body of Riaz deceased was looking fresh. He has further contended that there was no post-mortem staining and rigor mortis were absent. He has also argued that Shafqat accused did not repeat the blow as only one blow has been attributed to him to the deceased. He has also challenged the recovery of Khanjars as according to him they were sent in one sealed parcel to the Chemical Examiner for onward transmission to the Serologist. From this he concluded that the recovery of daggers is doubtful. He also criticised the motive part of the prosecution case as according to him it has not been established. The counsel also criticised the evidence of ocular witnesses saying that they were not present over there. They are interested, inimical and inter-related. On the other hand learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant have argued that the defence has not established its plea which was taken at the time of trial. The lady Mst. Fakhran Bibi was not produced nor she was produced before the Investigation Officer. It is an afterthought. He has further argued that Shafqat accused, though he did not inflict second blow on the deceased yet he repeated the blow on the witnesses. He also argued that as far as time and place of occurrence is concerned there are Ao two opinions. According to him non-mentioning of the name of the complainant in the inquest report does not change the complexion of the case. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. The defence in order to establish its plea has mainly relied upon the medical report of Mst. Fakhran Bibi through D.W.1 Dr. Imtiaz Gill wherein he had stated about the five injuries of simple nature to her. This witness had stated that he examined the lady in D.H.Q. Hospital, Faisalabad on 23-7-1985 at 1-30 p.m. and discharged her next day. D.W.2 had stated that Mst. Fakhran Bibi was admitted in Mian Muhammad Trust Hospital, Faisalabad on 28-7-1985 and was discharged on 3-8-1985. P.W.11 Ghulam Abbas S.I. has also stated about application of Muhammad Hussain Exh. P.W.ll/A alongwith her medical report Exh.P.W.11/B. The reading of all these documents does not inspire any confidence whatsoever. On the contrary the prosecution has established the ocular account in its material particulars through Ghulam Hussain P.W.7 and the two injured witnesses, namely, Abid Hussain P.W.8 and Muhammad Mukhtar P.W.9. Their presence at the spot has been fully established and cannot be doubted on any ground A whatsoever. Their testimony is in full line with the medical evidence. These three eye-witnesses have minutely given the details of the injuries caused by the appellant to the deceased as well as the witnesses. The recovery of incriminating Khanjars P.3 and P.4 recovered respectively from Shafqat and Javed accused has been established beyond doubt. The assertion that the independent witness from the locality has not been examined, would not advance the case of the defence any further. The testimony of Ghulan Rasool P.W.6 goes a long way in establishing are on the pointation of the accused. It is established from the recovery of Khan the record that the Khanjars, which were recovered on the pointation of the accused according to the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, were stained with human blood. Learned counsel has argued that only one parcel was sent and that creates doubt in the recovery of the incriminating articles. I have seen the report of Chemical Examiner Ex. P.T., certifying the receipt of the packet containing daggers through Muhammad Ramzan P.W. In the circumstances, accept that the Khanjars recovered from the accused were stained with human blood. As regards the argument that 'the doctor said that the deceased was looking fresh at the time of post-mortem examination, that by itself does not negate the prosecution evidence because this very doctor has stated that the duration between the death and post-mortem examination was 10 to 15 hours. The whole reading of medical evidence fully establishes that the deceased had expired on 22-7-1983 in the evening as stated by the prosecution witnesses. In the circumstances it cannot be said -hat the medical evidence contradicts the ocular account. On the contrary I am of the considered view that the medical evidence is in full line with the ocular account as stated by the eye-witnesses. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case against the appellants up to the hilt. In the circumstances, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed. The complainant Ghulam Hussain has also filed criminal revision for the enhancement of sentence. I think the sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is adequate and' would meet the ends of justice. I see no reason C for the enhancement of sentence. Hence Criminal Revision is dismissed in limine. Javed appellant is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled. He be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining part of his sentence. H.B.T./S-679/L Appeal and revision dismissed.