1985 P Cr (PLP)

X‑Ray was advised for both the injuries and were kept under observation. Injuries of Mst. Irshad:‑‑ (1) Gunshot wound " x " x depth could not be reached, on right side of the back 4" above the right iliac crest. (2) Gunshot wound " x " x depth could not be reached, on the lower part of inner side of left arm. (3) Gunshot wound " x " x depth could not be reached, on the lower part of inner side of left forearm. X‑Ray for injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was advised and all the injuries were kept under observation. Both the injuries of Mst. Shahida were found grievous while those of Mst. Irshad Begum as simple. Their injuries were also X‑Rayed and Dr. Solomon Elahi, Radiologist (C.W.1) found metallic foreign body embedded in the injuries.

3. The incident was reported at Police Station Lalamusa by Riaz Hussain (P.W.1) vide F.I.R. Exh.P.A. recorded by S.I. Manzoor Ahmad (P.W.9). After registering the case the Sub‑Inspector visited the spot and removed blood‑stained earth from there under memo. Exh.P.C. He also visited the hospital. He arrested Liaquat Ali, appellant, on 21‑7‑1971 and Muhammad Waris, appellant, on 24‑7‑1971. Liaquat Ali led to the recovery of revolver P.1 and two live cartridges P.2/1‑2 from a graveyard which were taken into possession under memos.

4. The motive as stated in the F.I.R. was that Muhammad Waris had demanded the hand of Mst. Zahida, daughter of Mst. Irshad P.W. for his son Liaquat Ali but the demand was turned down. Having felt annoyed over it the appellants had made murderous assault on the ladies.

5. At the trial 9 witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution. Riaz Hussain (P.W.1), Talib Hussain (P.W.2), Muhammad Arif (P.W.4), Shafique Hussain (P.W.5) and the two injured ladies Mst. Irshad Begum (P.W.6) and Mst. Shahida Perveen (P.W.7) narrated the occurrence and fully implicated both the appellants. Lady Doctor Atiya Bano (P.W.8) and Dr. Solomon Elahi (C.W.1) stated that they had observed gunshot injuries mentioned above on the persons of Mst. Irshad and Shahida P.Ws. The doctors turned down the suggestions that the injuries were fabricated or caused with spike.

6. The appellants when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the allegation and stated that Mst. Zahida daughter of Mst. Irshad Begum was in fact married to Liaquat Ali and because the complainant party wanted Liaquat Ali to divorce Mst. Zahida, therefore, they had falsely implicated them in this case in order to pressurise them. They examined 6 witnesses in defence, namely, Mian Noor Alam (D.W.1) who proved the Nikah of Mst. Zahida with Liaquat Ali. Abdul Ghani (D.W.5) and Mahmood Ahmad (D.W:6) claimed to be the attested witnesses of the Nikahnama Exh.D.H. Ghulam Rasool (D.W.3) stated that he had drafted affidavit Exh.D.l of Mst. Zahida, at her instance, and she voluntarily thumb‑marked it. It may be mentioned that Mst. Zahida was also examined as D.W.2 but she did not admit that she had married Liaquat Ali of her own accord or had thumb‑marked Nikahnama Exh.D.H. She also denied to have sworn affidavit Exh. D.1. She was got declared hostild and cross‑examined by the appellants.

7. The learned trial Court on the basis of material on record accepted the prosecution version given by the injured ladies and the eye‑witnesses supported by the medical witnesses and convicted and sentenced them as indicated above.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as for the State and also perused the record.

9. The defence plea mainly is that because Mst. Zahida daughter of Mst. Irshad Begum had contracted marriage with Liaquat Ali against the wishes of her parents, they wanted Liaquat Ali to divorce Mst. Zahida and on his refusal to do so they falsely implicated both Liaquat Ali and his father in this case. It is not believable that for securing divorce from Liaquat Ali the complainant party caused serious gunshot injuries to these ladies just for implicating Liaquat Ali and his father in a case under section 307, P.P.C. This purpose could be achieved simply by filing a suit for dissolution of marriage against Liaquat Ali particularly when Mst. Zahida also was not on the side of appellants as we see that while appearing as D.W.2 she did not admit to have married Liaquat Ali. It seems that Mst. Zahida had married Liaquat Ali against the wishes of her parents and later on she retraced and went back to her parents. It appears that having been frustrated with the situation, Liaquat Ali nursed a grudge against Mst. Irshad Begum mother and Mst. Shahida sister of Mst. Zahida entertaining an impression that they were responsible for separating Mst. Zahida from him. This to my mind provided motive for Liaquat Ali, appellant, to attack the ladies. I an, therefore, clear in my mind that Liquat Ali had fired at the two ladies with revolver knowing fully well that had anyone of these ladies died he would have been guilty of committing the offence of murder. To Muhammad Waris, appellant, father of Liaquat Ali, only Lalkara has been attributed. He had gone empty‑handed at the spot. In the circumstances, his presence at the place of occurrence somewhat appears doubtful to me. So, while upholding the conviction of Liaquat Ali, I am disposed to give benefit of doubt to Muhammad Waris, appellant, by way of abundant caution.

10. The result is that this appeal to the extent of Muhammad Waris is accepted but that of Liaquat Ali is dismissed. In view of grievous injuries caused with fire‑arm, I find that the sentence of imprisonment and the fine imposed by the trial Court too is quite appropriate and needs no interference. This appeal is disposed of in the terms indicated above. M. Y. H Order accordingly