1990 PLP 1088 (SCMR)

Date of hearing: 20th January, 1990. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner Mst. Nasreen, against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 15‑3‑1988, whereby, criminal appeals of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were allowed. The facts of the case in brief are that the deceased Muhammad Inayat with his real sisters Mst. Nasreen injured PW and Mst. Perveen, accompanied the deceased, was returning to his Dera, alter attending the Qul ceremony of the daughter of one Ghulam Ali in village Nain. On their' way near the Dera of Murad Ali, the two respondents Bashir Ahmad and his brother Zafar Ali were sitting in ambush with their brother‑in‑law Bati and their friend Monda. Bashir respondent No.1 was armed with Carbine while his brother Zafar Iqbal respondent No. 2 was armed with a bullam. Bati and Monda acquitted accused were also armed with bullams. All of them attacked Inayat deceased. Bashir fired shot with his carbine and hit the deceased on the forehead, neck and arm with which he fell down. Zafar Iqbal inflicted him bullam blows on his abdomen and fingers of the right hand. Bati acquitted accused caused the deceased bullam blow on the abdomen below umbilicus and Monda accused gave bullam below on the left thigh of the deceased. Bashir respondent Na. 1 also fired a shot on his back and similarly Zafar lqbal respondent No. 2 gave another blow on the left ear of the deceased. In order to save her brother, Nasreen petitioner proceeded towards the deceased when Zafar Iqbal gave her a bullam blow with the wrong side of his bullam. She also fell on her brother when Zafar Iqbal gave another blow on her right arm. On the noise raised by the petitioner PW Soni also came to the spot and he asked the accused to spare Inayat deceased. Inayat died on the spot. Motive for the occurrence was that Mst. Perveen was betrothed with the accused Zafar Iqbal some 12‑13 years before the occurrence. Inayat deceased brother of Mst. Parveen due to some strained relations with Zafar Iqbal refused to give the hand of his sister to him, and she was married to Bahadar son of Rahman. The accused were arrested on 6‑6‑1983. Bashir respondent No. 1 led the police to the recovery of carbine and live cartridges on 10‑6‑1983 and similarly Zafar Iqbal respondent No. 2 took the police to the recovery his bullam which were taken into possession by the police. The accused were tried in the trial Court wherein they pleaded their innocence. The learned trial Judge found the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 guilty of the crime, convicted both of them under section 302/34, P.P.C. and sentenced them to death. Fine was also imposed on them. Bati and Monda were, however, acquitted by the trial Judge, giving them the benefit of doubt. On appeal before the High Court, the learned Judges while not considering worth reliance the statement of Mst. Nasreen PW felt that her presence was not established and similarly Muhammad Ali PW was. also not believed. The learned Judges of the High Court also took into consideration the evidence of the recovery of the weapons of offence which in their view does not inspire confidence on the ground that the recovery' was made. in the presence of related and interested persons and thus both the respondents were acquitted, vide impugned judgment. Muhammad Ali during the trial filed an affidavit, proving the innocence of Bati and while disbelieving the statement against the two acquitted accused by the trial Court, the High Court gave the benefit of doubt to the two respondents and thus they were acquitted. We have gone through the relevant facts and the judgments of the Courts below. We have come to the conclusion that the presence of Mst. Nasreen cannot be denied as she has received injuries on her body. We see no reason that how her statement has (teen discarded by the. learned Judges of the High Court, Under the circumstances, it is a case which needs reappraisal of the evidence. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. Non‑bailable warrants are to be issued for the arrest of the Bashir Ahmad and Zafar Iqbal, respondents Nos. 1 and

2. N.H.Q./N‑237/S ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.