1988 P Cr (PLP)

Similarly it was argued that the attesting witnesses of the recovery memo did not support the prosecution case. I have gone through the evidence with the help of the counsel for the appellant. Eye-witness account was criticised by the counsel on the ground that both eye-witnesses admitted the factum of enmity. In addition to that the evidence of the two eye-witnesses was not consistent. Learned counsel laid great stress on the following evidence of Siraj Din: "as there was an enmity and party fraction between we people and the accused, so we falsely implicated him in this case. The deceased was inimical towards the accused because the accused had committed Zina with the sister of deceased." Relying on this it was argued that the complainant himself admitted to have falsely implicated the appellant. This evidence, therefore, completely demolishes the prosecution case. While dealing with the evidence of Mst. Karam Bibi, counsel argued that as a matter of fact she was not present at the spot. She was brought to the scene by the prosecution as no other witness was available. Evidence of recovery was challenged on the ground that the attesting witnesses did not support it. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State contended that it is a case of solitary accused. Question of substitution as such does not arise. Case has been proved against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. Admittedly there is delay of 14 days in lodging the report but this has been properly and satisfactorily explained by the complainant. The parties tried to settle the matter. The deceased was then alive. They did not come to any agreement. In the meanwhile the injured expired. Naturally things took serious turn. The' complainant as such had no option but to report the matter to the' police. I do not think the delay in this case goes un-explained and is fatal to the prosecution care. Even otherwise perusal of the evidence of Siraj Din shows that he is a truthful witness. He never concealed any thing. He frankly admitted even those facts which were against him. Inspite of his age (70 years) his memory did not betray him and he deposed what he saw very accurately and confidently. I am not going to disbelieve Mst. Karam Bibi. Counsel has not been able to convince me that she was not present at the spot. She narrated the facts as best as could be expected from her. I have no reason to doubt either her testimony or her presence at the spot. The doctor, who examined Muhammad Amin while he was alive noticed the following two injuries: (1) An incised wound 3.5 c.m. x 0.5. c.m. into scalp deep on the right side of head on the ptyrion region 2 c. m . back to the right eye-brow. (2) Lacerated wound 2.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. into scalp deep on the right side of head on the parietal region. The same injuries were found by the doctor in the post-mortem. According to him death occurred due to lacerated wound. The mere fact that the recovery witnesses did not support the prosecution case would not matter much because the fate of this appeal depends upon the ocular version and the medical evidence. The main emphasis of the counsel was on that portion of evidence of Siraj Din which has been referred to above. In order to be sure I consulted Urdu record-That clarified the entire position because in the Urdu record it is stated. Even otherwise I do not find any force in the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the first informant admitted to have falsely implicated the appellant. As a matter of fact, the suggestion that the appellant had been falsely implicated was denied by the first informant. This is obvious from the plain reading of the sentence because it is a continuing sequence where the entire suggestion has been denied. There is no contradiction between medical and ocular evidence. I am, therefore, fully convinced that the prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt against the appellant. There is no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. S.A./M-573/L Conviction/ sentence upheld.