2003 P Cr (PLP)

(1) Incised wound 5 c.m. x 2 c.m. on front of left shoulder. (2) Stab chest 4 c.m. x 3 c.m. on left side of chest, 3 c.m. from nipple. (3) Updown T-shaped incised wound 4 x 3 c.m., muscle exposed on left buttock. (4) Incised wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m., muscle exposed on back of chest, on left side 6 c.m. from posterior axillary line. (5) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. muscle exposed on back of chest on the middle part of midline. (6) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. muscle exposed in the left axila. (7) Intestines were present out of abdomen on left side through a stab wound between anterior superior iliac spine and chest cage. Wound was 7 c.m. x 4 c.m. measured after putting small intestine in the abdomen. (8) Stab chest on left side lower part measuring 4 x 2 c.m. muscle exposed. (9) Incised wound 4 x 2 c.m. on left side of abdomen, close to superior enterior iliac spine. (10) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. x muscle exposed on enterior part of upper left thigh. In this opinion injury No.2 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature but the remaining injuries were also contributory to. death. All the injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapon and were ante-mortem. The ocular account was furnished by Karim Khan complainant P.W.9 who supported the version of the F.I.R. and narrated the motive of the occurrence. Mujahid Khan was examined as P.W.8 who was son of the deceased Najeeb Ullah Khan and he supported the prosecution case as an eye-witness of the occurrence. He also attested the recovery memo. Exh.P.J. whereby Chhuri was got recovered by the appellant. The trial culminated into conviction of the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this jail appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there is clear contradiction in ocular account and the medical evidence as according to both the eye-witnesses five Chhuri blows were inflicted by both the accused on the deceased while according to the post-mortem examination 10 injuries were found on the dead body which shows that the prosecution witnesses were not present at the spot; that both the witnesses are closely related to the deceased and inter se and their testimony has not been corroborated by any independent source, therefore, the case against the appellant is doubtful. Conversely, the appeal has been opposed by the learned State Counsel. Heard. Record perused. It was the daylight occurrence and there is no previous enmity between the appellant and the witnesses to involve him falsely by letting off the real culprits. Both the eye-witnesses have sufficiently been explained their presence at the spot. Mere relationship of the eye witnesses with the deceased is no ground to discard their testimony unless it is shown that they were inimical and interested against the accused to depose against him falsely as no previous enmity exists between the parties. Both the parties are Pathan by caste and belong to Peshawar. In the prevailing circumstances of the society, no independent person comes forward to depose against the accused. Mere non-mentioning of number of injuries correctly does not chow that the occurrence was not witnessed by them as photographic picture is not possible to be given by the prosecution witnesses. The accused was found guilty during the trial. The injuries attributed to the appellant have been fully corroborated by the post-mortem report. The prosecution case has further been corroborated by recovery of the weapon of offence. The trial Court has already taken lenient view in awarding sentence to the appellant. After reappraisal of the evidence, I do not find any illegality or infirmity of the reasons misreading or misappreciation of evidence to interfere in the well reasoned judgment. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed having no force. H.B.T./M-1729/L Appeal dismissed.