2006 PLP 2128 (YLR)

KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14-6-2001 passed by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajanpur, v whereby Muhammad Iqbal appellant stands convicted and sentenced for offence under section 302, P.P.C. to death in case F.I.R. No.161 registered at Police City Rajanpur on 26-4-19989. Murder Reference No.494 of 2001, seeking confirmation or otherwise of the death sentence imposed upon the appellant, is also before us. We propose to decide both these matters through this single judgment.

2. The facts of the case, per F.I.R. lodged at the instance of Abaid Ullah, S.-I./ S. H.O. , in brief, are that on 26-4-1998 at bout 10-00 a.m., the complainant along with Ghulam Shabbir, A.S.-I., was present in his office, while Mushtaq Hamid, H.C., Irshad Ahmad, C-I., Ghulam Yasin, C-I., and Ghulam Asghar-Constable were present in the office of Moharrer, whereas Abdul Ghafoor, a local Councillor, and one Abdul Quddus, both members of Aman Committee, Rajanpur, who had come to see him, were present in the premises of the police station. Aman Ullah alias Shamanoo, the accused in case F.I.R. No.20 of 1995 registered at Police Station Sadar Rajanpur on 3-2-1995 for offence under section 302, P.P.C., along with other persons, namely Riaz, Rasheed, Ghulam Shabbir son of Jahan Khan and Lal Bakhsh, the accused involved in different cases, was confined in the police lock-up, when Muhammad Iqbal, accused/appellant, entered the premises of the police station, took out .12 bore pistol from the folder (NEFA) of his Shalwar and fired a shot from the pistol, hitting Aman Ullah on the left side of his chest, in view whereof he fell down within the lock-up of the police station, upon which the complainant along with the aforesaid police employees and the members of the Aman Committee rushed to spot. Whereupon Muhammad Iqbal ran away from the spot, along with the crime weapon, but, as a result of chase, was apprehended along with the weapon, outside the Main Gate of the Police Station. Aman Ullah alias Shamanoo succumbed to the injuries at the spot.

3. The motive, as alleged in the F.I.R., was that three years prior to the occurrence, above said Aman Ullah alias Shamanoo had committed the murder of father of Muhammad Iqbal accused/ appellant and was confined in the lock-up in that connection.

4. On personal search of Muhammad Iqbal, .12 bore pistol (P.1) was recovered from his possession and a crime empty (P.2) was found in the chamber of the pistol. Both these articles were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PB/1.

5. Abaid Ullah, S.-I./I.O., opened the lock-up, took out the dead body of Aman Ullah alias Shamanoo, prepared his injury statement (Exh.PA/3) and inquest report (Exh.PA/2) and got the post-mortem examination of the deceased. On spot inspection, he prepared the site-plan (Exh.PF) of the place of occurrence and took into possession blood-stained earth from the spot through memo. Exh.PC. He also recorded the statements of the eye-witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. He also added offence under section 13 of Arms Ordinance XX of 1965, as the accused Muhammad Iqbal could not produce any licence for having possessed the pistol. After post-mortem examination, the last-worn clothes of the deceased, phial containing the pellets and the fetters of the deceased (as he was involved in many cases) were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PD. Iqbal appellant was arrested for the murder of Aman Ullah on the same day. The I.O. also accompanied the ADC(G) to the District Jail, Rajanpur, in a judicial inquiry, whereby he identified the accused and his statement in that respondent was recorded by the ADC (G), Rajanpur. The site-plans Exhs.PG, PG/1 and PG/2 were got prepared from the Sub-Engineer, District Council, Rajanpur. After completion of investigation, the accused was challaned to face trial.

6. To prove its version at the trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses in all and after tendering in evidence the positive reports of Chemical Examiner Exh.PH, Serologist Exh. PJ and Forensic Science Laboratory Exh.PK closed its side. Thereafter Muhammad Iqbal, accused/appellant, in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. pleaded his innocence and false implication in this case and claimed that the murder of the deceased, who was a hardened criminal and involved in many murder and dacoity cases, was committed in an encounter by the police, so as to get rid of him.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of this appeal, submits that the eye-witnesses, who were confined in the lock-up, were not produced and were given up by the prosecution; that out of sixteen witnesses, only nine were examined by the prosecution during the trial; that all the public witnesses were given up and only police officials were produced before the trial Court; that Lal Bakhsh P.W.8, who was one of the eye-witnesses, appeared before the trial Court but did not support the prosecution. The learned counsel submits that the deceased was kept with mala fide intention in Police Station City Rajanpur, as he was allegedly arrested in connection with a murder case registered at Police Station Sadar Rajanpur; that the recovery of crime weapon has no legal worth, as no independent witness was associated because , outside the police station, lot of people had gathered; that it is a case of no evidence, as ocular account is in conflict with the medical evidence; that no independent corroboration was brought on the record to prove the guilt of he accused. Learned counsel submits that if this Court is not convinced for acquittal of the appellant, then this is not a case of death sentence and there are mitigating circumstances in favour of the appellant, as, according to the learned counsel, the deceased had murdered the father of the appellant three years ,earlier to the present occurrence, so he, in order to take revenge, has committed the murder of the deceased and death sentence be converted into life imprisonment as the appellant was a young man of about twenty years and it was natural on his part to take revenge of the murder of his father. Reliance has been placed upon Manzoor Ahmad v. The State (2003 PCr.LJ 354) and Shah Nawaz alias Shani v. The State (2005 YLR 1011).

8. On the other hand, learned State counsel has defended the impugned judgment, contending that F.I.R. was lodged with promptitude; that there was a strong motive, as the deceased had committed the murder of the father of the appellant three years prior to the present occurrence; that recovery of the crime weapon was effected from the appellant who was apprehended at the spot; that the ocular account fully supported the prosecution story and stood corroborated by the medical evidence; and that no evidence was produced by the appellant in support of his plea.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with their assistance.

10. The occurrence took place in the premises of Police Station City, Rajanpur, A at 10-00 a.m. on 26-4-1998. At the same moment, i.e. 10-00 a.m., the F.I.R. was lodged by Abaid Ullah, S.-I./S.H.O. The appellant is the only accused. The motive behind the occurrence was that the deceased, who was confined at the police lock-up, had committed the murder of father of the appellant three years prior to the occurrence and in order to take revenge, the appellant committed the murder of the deceased. He was apprehended at the spot. The crime weapon was recovered from his possession and crime empty was also recovered from the chamber of the pistol. Both were sent to the Fire-arms Expert, who submitted positive report. The witnesses, who appeared before the trial Court, though are police officials yet they are natural ones, being posted at he same police station, coupled with the factum of apprehension of the appellant. On the same day the post-mortem was conducted within the duration of 4 to 6 hours, which shows that the time of occurrence was the same, as given by the prosecution. If the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had committed the murder of the deceased in order to take revenge, so he was entitled to lessor punishment, is allowed to prevail, then it would amount to giving a licence that the accused persons are allowed to be murdered in the police station. There would be no end to it and the law of jungle would prevail upon and there would be no need of the establishment of Courts and other executive machinery in the country. We have not noticed even a slightest dent in the prosecution evidence. The appellant had committed the murder of the deceased. There cannot be any better case of the prosecution except the one which has been argued today before us. .We find no mitigating circumstances in favour of the appellant. The prosecution has proved its case beyond any doubt against the appellant. The precedents cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable in the circumstances of the case.

11. The result is that this appeal is dismissed; the death sentence imposed upon the appellant is confirmed; and the murder reference stands answered in affirmative. H.B.T./M-311/L Appeal dismissed.