1989 PLP 790 (MLD)

4. After recording the complaint, Exh.P.C., Muhammad Siddique, Investigating Officer alongwith other police officials came to the spot and prepared injury statement, Exh.P.G: and inquest report Exh.P.H. of the dead body and, thereafter, sent the same for post‑mortem examination. He took into possession one empty cartridge P.3 from the spot and sealed it into a parcel, vide memo. Exh.P.E. He recorded the statements of the witnesses at the spot.

5. Nazir, A.S.I. Police Station Satellite Town Gujranwala, P.W.9 also partly investigated the case. He took into possession the last worn clothes of the deceased, vide memo. Exh.PA. He arrested the accused on 29‑7‑1986 near a Canal Bridge of Chhichhar Wali. He took into possession gun P.5 alongwith a cartridge P.4 from the accused and secured the same into a parcel vide memo. Exh.P.F. He got the said memos. attested from the witnesses and recorded their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Dr. Muhammad Akhtar Lang, P.W.11, on 29‑7‑1.986, conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Sharif and found the following injuries:‑ (1) 6 gunshot pellets wounds in an area of 7 c.m. x 4 c.m. all elliptical in shape with blackened margins (wounds of entry) on the front of left chest 1.5 c.m. above left nipple and 5 c.m. from midline. (2) 5 gunshot pellet wounds with everted margins all ellptical in shape in an area of 6 c.m. x 1 c.m. on posterior axillary line 5 c.m. below left scapula and 20 c.m. below left shoulder joint (exit wound). (3) A gunshot pellet wound measuring 1 c.m. x .8 c.m. all elliptical in shape in mid‑a.illary line 13 c.m. below left axilla. Margins were everted. (Exit wound). Distance of fire was approximately within 3 yards. In his opinion, the death had occurred due to injury No. 1 which was sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury No.1 was ante‑mortem.

6. The prosecution in support of its case produced 11 witnesses in all. Imtiaz Hussain Foot Constable, P.W.1, on 1‑9‑1986 took sealed parcels containing gun and empty to the Office of Forensic Science Laboratory but he could not deposit on the same day, therefore, on the next day he deposited the said parcels in the respective office. P.W.4, Arif Hussain, Draftsman, prepared the site plans, Exhs. P.B. and P.B./1 of the place of occurrence on the pointation of the P.Ws. The eye‑witness account has been furnished by Zulfiqar Ali, brother -in‑law of the appellant and Mst. Parveen Akhtar P.Ws. 5 and 6 respectively P.W.7 Muhammad Yaqoob had witnessed the recovery of crime empty P.1 from the spot. P.W.8 Muhammad Yousuf, A.S.I. had recorded the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.C./1. Nazir, A.S.I, P.W.9 had partly investigated the case and arrested the accused. He had also taken into possession gun P.5 and live cartridge P.6 from the possession of the appellant at the time of his arrest. The investigation was conducted by Muhammad Siddique, Inspector, P.W.10 who submitted the challan at the completion of the investigation. Dr. Muhammad Akhtar Lang, P.W.11 conducted the post‑mortem examination of the deceased. The learned Prosecutor gave up Mst. Rasoolan Bibi, Muhammad Inayat, Nisar Ahmed, Muhammad Suleman and Muhammad Ijaz P.Ws. as unnecessary and tendered in evidence the report of the Serologist, Exh.P.1. and report of the Chemical Examiner Exh.P.M. as well as the report of the Forensic .Science Laboratory, Exh.P.K. and closed the prosecution case.

7. At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. wherein he refuted the entire prosecution allegations. He further submitted that during the days of occurrence he was working as Munshi at some brick‑kiln and was receiving Rs.1,000 per mensem. He further stated that his father‑in‑law Muhammad Sharif deceased alongwith P.Ws. used to pressurize him to sell his house so that his wife's brother Zulfiqar Ali P.W. could be got married. On his refusal, they nourished grudge against him. He had asserted that at the time of the offence none of the P.Ws. was present at the spot. The appellant also appeared on oath in his defence and pleaded innocence. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant has not been proved at all. Submits that the eye‑witnesses are highly interested and inimical, therefore, they may not be relied upon. Submits that the I6arned trial Court has disbelieved the witnesses so far as the motive is concerned, therefore, they cannot be relied upon with regard to the main occurrence till their statements are corroborated by the independent witnesses. Submits that the occurrence took place at night, therefore, it was' impossible for the witnesses to identify the assailant. The contentions have been controverted by learned counsel for the State.

8. I have heard learned counsel at length and gone through the evidence with their assistance. The occurrence took place inside the house of the deceased where his wife, son Zulfiqar Ali P.W. and daughter Mst. Parveen Akhtar were also sleeping. In these circumstances they become natural witnesses. The defence has not challenged the venue of occurrence at all. The occurrence took place at Sehriwela and all the inmates of the house are expected to he present at that time. Their sleeping in the courtyard of the house is also natural because the, occurrence took place on 29th July, 1987 when normally the people sleep outside their house in those days.

9. The ocular account has been furnished by Zulfiqar Ali and Mst. Parveen Akhtar P.Ws. 5 and 6 respectively. They have given the details of the occurrence the way it transpired. They have stated that they identified the assailant who was armed with gun with which he fired at their father killing him at the spot. Both the witnesses have been cross‑examined at length but the defence has not suggested to any of the witnesses any motive for false involvement nor any mala fides has been suggested by the defence: It has clime in evidence that the appellant was the husband of Mst. Parveen Akhtar daughter of the deceased but they were cousins as well. In these circumstances, if they had grown up together and lived since childhood the question of identity o f the appellant cannot be seriously challenged. Even otherwise also it had carne in evidence of Mst. Perveen Akhtar P.W.6 that when the appellant entered the house her mother Mst. Rasoolan Bibi enquired about the identity of the person knocking at the door and the appellant gave his name but this spirit of the statement of the witness has gone unchallenged. Therefore, I hold that the eye‑witnesses were present at the spot and the occurrence took place in their house. They have seen the occurrence and were able to identify the assailatit. The gun recovered from the possession of the appellant at the time of his arrest and the crime empties secured from the spot were sent to the Office of Forensic Science Laboratory. According to the said report the crime empty was fired from the gun recovered at the instance of the, appellant. This provides corroboration to the statements of the witnesses. From what has been discussed above; I hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any doubt, therefore the appeal fails which is accordingly dismissed. S.A./K‑151/L Appeal dismissed.