1995 PLP 756 (MLD)

Khalid Mahmood P.W.7 is a witness in whose presence, the police took into possession branch of a tree Pl from the place of occurrence vide memo. Exh.PF, blood‑stained pebbles vide memo. Exh.PG and motor‑cycle NO.RIC/4751 of Safdar Khan deceased P2 vide memo. Exh.PH. Abdul Ghafoor P.W.8 is a draftsman, who prepared site plan Exhs.PJ and PJ/1. Habibullah FC while appearing as P.W.9 stated that on 7‑1‑1991 M.H.C. delivered to him parcel containing blood‑stained pebbles which he, intact, delivered in the office of Chemical Examiner. In addition to this, on 29‑1‑1991 he took away from M.H.C. two sealed parcels which he delivered in the Office of the Chemical Examiner intact on 30‑1‑1991. Asif Abbas P.W.10 is a formal witness who recorded the formal F.I.R. Exh.PD/1 on receipt of complaint Exh.PD. According to him, the I.O. gave him parcel of pebbles which he delivered intact to Habibullah Constable for onward transmission to the Office of the Chemical Examiner. He stated that he also received two parcels pertaining to this case from Amir Khan A.S. I kept them in tact in Malkhana and thereafter deliver the same to Habibullah Constable for onward transmission to the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore. Arshad Mahmood P.W.12 stated that on 20‑12‑1990 when he was posted in P.S. Hazro, he escorted the dead body of Safdar Khan from the place of occurrence to the mortuary at Hazro and delivered the same intact to the doctor. After post‑mortem, the doctor had delivered to him the last worn clothes of the deceased shirt P3, Shalwar P4, Jursy P5, and Saluka P

6. All these articles were delivered to the S.H.O. who took them into possession vide memo. Exh.PK. During investigation, Raja Abdul Razzaq S.I. P.W.12 recorded the statements of Tariq Mahmood, Arshad Mahmood, Sher Afzal and Mir Afzal Constables on 20‑12‑1990. He also deposed about taking into possession of the last worn clothes of the deceased. Amir Muhammad Khan appeared as P.W.13 and stated that on 19‑12‑1990, while he was present at Adda Shinka on patrol. duty alongwith police force, he received an information regarding the occurrence. He went to the place of occurrence where he recorded the statement Exh.PD of Muhammad Nawaz complainant and despatched the same for registration of the case. He prepared injury statement of the dead body of Safdar Khan deceased and despatched the same to the mortuary under the escort of Arshad Mahmood Constable for post‑mortem examination. He inspected the site and took into possession branch of tree, blood‑stained pebbles, motor‑cycle, and the currency notes of Rs.1,

500. He also recorded the statements of P.Ws., prepared rough sketch of the place of occurrence. Ultimately on 20‑12‑1990, he delivered the parcels pertaining to this case to Moharrir for safe custody in Malkhana. Later on, he got prepared site plans Exhs.PJ and PJ/1 from the Patwari Halqa. On 3‑1‑1991, he effected the arrest of the three accused and sent them to jail with a view to arrange for the identification parade. On 8‑1‑1991, he accompanied the Magistrate to Jail for identification parade but remained outside the jail. On 10‑1‑1991, he took the persons of the accused from jail and obtained their physical remand. According to him, Nisar Khan accused led to the recovery of 7MM rifle from his house situated in village Shinka which was taken into possession. On the same day, Muhammad Ramzan accused while in, custody led to the recovery of .32 bore pistol P8 from his house in the same village. Tariq Almas also led to the recovery of .30 bore revolver P9 from his house. It was unloaded and empty cartridge P10 and three live cartridges P11/1‑3 were recovered from it. Revolver P9 and empty P10 were sealed into separate parcels and taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PR. He deposited all the aforesaid articles with the Moharrir on the same day. He completed the investigation and challaned the accused for trial. Haq Nawaz P.W.14 took over the investigation on 16‑1‑1991. Nisar Khan accused while in custody led to the recovery of .7MM rifle from his house which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PO. Muhammad Ramzan accused led to the recovery of .30 bore pistol P8 from his residential house which, too, was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PQ. Tariq Ismail while in custody led to the recovery of .32 bore revolver P

9. The revolver was unloaded and empty P10 and two live cartridges were recovered and made into sealed parcel vide memo. Exh.PR.

5. After recording prosecution evidence, learned trial Court addressed the prosecution evidence by categorising it as ocular account, medical evidence, identification parade and recovery of certain articles. Learned trial Court dealt with the statement of P.W.3 Muhammad Nawaz complainant who is the only witness produced by the prosecution as eye‑witness. This witness has admitted that he was sentenced for the murder of his own father, and his real sister and her husband appeared as P.Ws. against him. For that murder, he was sentenced and had undergone the sentence of imprisonment for life. His statement was discarded for number of reasons by the learned trial Court. It has been stated that a person who committed the murder of his father cannot be a competent witness so far as the offence of Hadd is concerned. He is a witness who identified only one accused i.e. Tariq Almas. Thus, he excluded the other two. Muhammad Nawaz P.W. disclosed before the Court that the saw machine which was on lease with the deceased was sold away to Shafiq for a sum of Rs.30,

000. The vendee wanted the deceased to hand over the possession of the saw machine to this witness but the demand was resisted on which some altercation took place between the vendee i.e. Shafiq and the deceased. He has also stated that the vendee left the place at that time with a challenge to the deceased. Muhammad Shafiq, after the present murder, removed the saw machine from Maskinabad to his village Khaliqdad. The statement of Muhammad Nawaz is full of discrepancies. In the earlier part of his examination‑in‑chief, he stated that all the three assailants were holding guns but subsequently he changed it by saying that two were carrying pistols whereas the one was holding gun. He stated that it was darkness and the total occurrence ended within a short time of less than a minute. Incidentally; he also stated that all the assailants had muffled their faces and only their eyes and heads were visible. Regarding this witness, it is sufficient to say that he is a witness who committed the murder of his father: His statement is full of contradictions. It is strange to admit that he could identify Tariq Almas accused at the alleged occurrence taking place in darkness while the assailants were having their faces muffled. He is a person who was detained as suspect for ten days in this case. So, the possibility cannot be ruled out that he was the person who conspired with the persons, who committed the crime. In fact, his statement is inherently so weak that it does not appeal to reason to be relied upon. Hence the account given by this witness is discarded.

6. While dealing with the identification parade, learned Sessions Judge also dealt about it quite properly. There is no dispute about the identification parade carried out by the learned Magistrate. The identification parade has not been given much weight in support of the prosecution evidence.

7. As far as the medical evidence is concerned, the injuries found on the person of the deceased have been recorded. The complainant contradicts the allegation made in the F.I.R. Exh. PD that the deceased was hit from the front, whereas the entry wound was on the back on the right shoulder of the deceased. The medical evidence, therefore, does not support the so‑called ocular evidence brought on the record in the statement of Muhammad Nawaz P.W. Learned Sessions Judge has also discarded the recovery evidence mainly on the ground that the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. have been violated by the I.O. Rest of the evidence is of formal nature.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Very frankly, he admits that the statement of Muhammad Nawaz is a weak type of evidence produced by the prosecution. It is full of contradictions. The man is of chequered character and antecedents leaving strong impression of a person who cannot be relied upon in the case of such like nature as the present one. His statement has, therefore, rightly been discarded by the trial Court by giving cogent reasons as mentioned in the impugned judgment.

9. As far as the evidence of Wajtakkar witness, medical evidence and recovery etc. is concerned, in no manner, it can advance and lend any strength to the prosecution case in connecting the respondents/accused with the commission of the crime. It would be a futile effort to dilate upon each and every piece of evidence, having no strength to advance prosecution case.

10. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have gone through the impugned judgment which is full of reasoning in making the verdict sustainable but challenged through the present revision petition. In view of above, the revision petition is, dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./A‑744/L Revision dismissed.