1995 P Cr (PLP)

6. The learned trial Judge after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the parties convicted the appellant as described above.

7. Complainant Muhammad, P.W.1 (Exh.4) has deposed that he had taken Municipal Commissioner Allauddin to Medicare Hospital, F.B. Area, where he had gone to see his ailing .daughter. He parked the car outside the Hospital and kept standing near the vehicle when at about 11-30 a.m. 3 persons surrounded him and put hand in the pocket of his shirt to take the key forcibly. The complainant resisted, whereupon one of them pointed out pistol at him. He then grappled with one of the assailants on which the assailant hit him with Butt of the gun and the third person started beating him with fist blows. One of the assailants then managed to get the key and occupied the driving seat of the car. Culprit tried to start the vehicle on which the complainant caught hold of him. Other two culprits managed to run away. In the meantime the police party on duty reached there and came to rescue of the complainant and caught hold of the assailant who disclosed his name as Arif. One pistol was secured by police from his personal search for which he had no licence. The accused alongwith property was then brought to Police Station Gulberg, where the case was registered. The complainant has further stated in his deposition that the accused Muhammad Arif present in Court was the same person. He has produced the statement recorded under section 154, Cr.P.C. as Exh.3/A.

8. P.W.2, H.C. Fateh Khan Exh.5, who was member of the police party has deposed that on 25-2-1992, he was on patrol duty alongwith police party headed by S.H.O., Abdul Rashid Khan and when they reached at Medicare Hospital at about 11-45 a.m. they saw two persons grappling with each other in the vehicle bearing No.JL 0028. They rushed towards them and found one person with revolver in his right hand and another person was bleeding from his head. The person with revolver was apprehended. The injured person informed the police that the assailant was forcibly taking away his Government vehicle of K.M.C. and had also caused him injury with Butt of the revolver. The assailant disclosed his name as Muhammad Arif, who had no licence for the pistol. He was arrested. Injured Muhammad Iqbal narrated the whole story of the police. The accused and the property alongwith the complainant were brought to the Gulberg Police Station, where the case was registered on the statement recorded under section 154, Cr.P.C. of the complainant Muhammad Iqbal. This witness has also stated that the accused present in Court is the same. He has produced Mashirnama of arrest and recovery of pistol as Exh.5-A and Mashirnama of Wardat as Exh.5-B.

9. P.W.3, Inspector Abdul Rashid Khan, is Investigating Officer of the case. He was on patrol duty at the relevant time alongwith police party including P.W. H.C. Fateh Khan. He has also fully supported the case of prosecution by deposing that on 25-2-1992 when they reached near Medicare Hospital they saw a big crowd in front of the clinic and found two persons grappling. He caught hold of the person having pistol in his hand. The other persons disclosed his name as Muhammad Iqbal driver of Municipal Commissioner, Karachi. Inspector Abdul Rashid came to know that the accused was grappling with the driver after snatching key from him. Investigating officer further deposed that he recorded the statement under section 154, Cr.P.C. of the complainant and obtained his signature and forwarded the same to the police station for incorporating the same in 154, Cr.P.C. book. He arrested the accused and secured the pistol and prepared Mashirnama in presence of H.C. Fateh Khan and Shabbir Khan and also prepared the Mashirnama of Wardat. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. Complainant Muhammad Iqbal was referred to Abbasi Shaheed Hospital for treatment. On completing the investigation, the Investigating officer submitted challan against the appellant. He also identified accused Muhammad Arif present in Court to be the same person.

10. Dr. Moula Bux (Exh.8) had examined the injuries of complainant Muhammad Iqbal. He has deposed that on 25-5-1992 he was Medico-legal Officer at Abbasi Shaheed Hospital, when at about 1-45 p.m. one injured Muhammad Iqbal came to the hospital with police letter for examination, treatment and certificate. He examined him and found the following injuries on his persons. (1) Lacerated wound about 1" x 1/4" into skin deep at right temporal region. (2) Lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" into skin deep at the right parietal region. (3) Three abrasions each about 2" x 1/2" at right side of the chest above and below the nipple.

11. According to the doctor the abovementioned injuries appeared to have been caused by some hard and blunt object and the same were fresh at the time of examination. Injury No.3 was declared simple and after X-ray report injuries Nos.1 and 2 were also declared as simple in nature. He has produced the medical certificate issued by him as Exh.8-A and supplementary medical report Exh.8-B.

12. I have heard Mr. Salahuddin Haider, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Habibur Rashid, Advocate for A.-G. for State and have gone through the record of this case.

13. It is contended by Mr. Salahuddin Haider, that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses about the place of incident and further admittedly there were so many persons from public present at the Wardat, but no one was examined by the Investigating Officer. Even Municipal Commissioner. Allauddin Sabir has not been examined by the police. He has further argued that the appellant was caught by the police from the Wardat due to mistake, as the actual culprit had run away and when the appellant failed to pay the bribe to police he was falsely implicated in the present case.

14. Mr. Habibur Rashid, learned counsel for State, has strongly supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that there is no material/ contradiction in the deposition of the witnesses. All the witnesses are natural and independent and have fully supported the prosecution case.

15. I have given full consideration to the contentions made by the learned Advocates and have carefully gone through the impugned judgment as well as the entire evidence on record. I am not pursuaded by the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. I do not see any major contradiction in the statements of the witnesses. Admittedly the appellant was not previously known to the prosecution witnesses No enmity has been attributed by the appellant with the complainant or other police witnesses. The contention of the appellant that he was caught by mistake seems to be an afterthought and not convincing. There is no reason to believe that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant, who is totally an independent witness. The plaintiff, who is main witness and who had himself caught hold the appellant on the spot has given account of the incident in a natural way. There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence which is supported by two police witnesses, who were on patrol duty and rescued the complainant from the accused at the time of incident. .

16. As far the contention of the appellant's counsel that no person from public present at Wardat or Municipal Commissioner, was examined, it is very difficult to pursuade any person from public to be witness and appear in Court fearing revenge at the hands of such dangerous assailants, who would not spare any one for petty selfish gain. There was no need to examine Municipal Commissioner Allauddin Sabir as admittedly he was not present at the time of the incident. Police witness is also a good witness as anybody else can be unless there is any motive of false implication or enmity with the accused. Minor contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses cannot be beneficial to the appellant. On the contrary these contradictions appeared to be natural and have made the prosecution case more strong.

17. The appellant was caught red-handed on the spot and the weapon, namely, the pistol used in the offence, has been recovered from his possession. The circumstances, discussed above, would be sufficient for corroborating the identity of the culprit. The evidence of the complainant, the police Inspector and H.C. Fateh Khan, regarding identity corroborated by the circumstantial evidence mentioned above will be sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant.

18. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has proved its cased beyond any reasonable doubt. The appellant has been rightly convicted by the trial Court, therefore, this appeal must fail. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. N.H.Q./M-2092/K ??????????? Appeal dismissed.