2002 PLP 846 (YLR)

During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused. The medical evidence was furnished by Dr. Muhammad Nawaz Khan P.W.10 who conducted the post‑mortem examination on the dead body of Fida Hussain and found the following injuries on his person:‑

1. Four fire‑arm wounds of entry in an area of 5 x 3 c.m. varying in size from 1 c.m. x to 3 c.m. circular in shape, margins were inverted on the lateral aspect of the left side of the chest, 3 c.m. from the apex of axilla and 5 c.m. outer side of left nipple. The direction was forward and back word, blackening and burning was present and corresponding rents were preset on Qamiz.

2. A fire‑arm wound of exit everted margin of 5 x 6 c.m. on the left side of back of chest 25 c.m. from the root of neck, and just outside of midline. Wound was bleeding profusely and corresponding rents were present on Qamiz.

3. A tire‑arm wound of entry half x half c.m. on the medial side of left fore arm, 5 c.m. below the elbow joint. Corresponding rents were present on Qamiz.

4. A fire‑arm wound of exit x 1 c.m., 5 c.m. out side of injury No.3. The ocular account was furnished by Haq Nawaz P.W.6, who was complainant of the case and supported the version of the F.I.R. and Abdul Aziz P.W.7. The case was investigated by Ghulam Jaffar Shah A.S.I./P.W.11 who had also recorded the statement Exh.P.C. of the complainant and Abdul Qadir D. S. P/D. W.1, who found the accused innocent. The statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. in which they claimed their innocence and false involvement. The trial culminated into acquittal of the respondents as mentioned above. The complainant had filed the instant appeal in which vide order dated 23‑6‑1997 notice was issued only to Muhammad Jamil respondent while the appeal was dismissed qua the other respondents Muhammad Iftikhar, Chiragh and Taj. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it was a day light occurrence and fatal injury was attributed to Muhammad Jamil respondent and the impugned judgment is based on misreading and mis‑appreciation of evidence; that prosecution case was supported by the eye‑witnesses. They had no previous enmity for false implication of the accused and the reasons for acquittal of Muhammad Jamil respondent are not borne out from the record. Conversely, the appeal has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent Muhammad Jamil and for the State. Heard. Record perused. Dr. Muhammad Nawaz P.W.10 found four injuries on Fida Hussain deceased. Out of which injury No. 1 to 3 were entry wound and in the cross‑examination, he admitted presence of burning, blackening and of plastic dots in the dead body, therefore, as per his opinion, the injuries were caused from within 3 feet distance. According to Haq Nawaz P. W.6 and Abdul Aziz P.W.7, respondent Muhammad Jamil fired from a distance of three karams, the same distance they pointed out to the Draftsman who prepared the site plan, therefore, there is clear conflict in the ocular account the medical evidence. The accused were also found innocent by D. S. P Abdul Qadir D. W.1 during the investigation. Gun P.6 taken into possession from Muhammad Jamil was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for the comparison as no empty was taken into possession from the spot. The defense version from the very beginning before the police and trial Court was that there was rift between Abdul Aziz and Muhammad Jamil for repayment of Rs.450 and Muhammad Jamil accused was physically tortured and thereafter the accused came to their fields to cut fodder for the animals and Taj Din asked Haq Nawaz that why his brother Abdul Aziz is not paying the due amount, Haq Nawaz was offended and asked his son Fida Hussain to bring gun which was handed over to Haq Nawaz, who intended to fire at the accused party but Rahawal (given up P.W.) intervened and tried to snatch the gun from him which went off during the struggle and Fida Hussain deceased was injured and succumbed to the injuries. No independent witness supported the prosecution story. After deep reappraisal of evidence, we find that appraisal of the evidence made by the trial Judge is upto to the norms and standard laid down by the Superior Courts and do not find any perversity of the reasons for extending benefit of doubt in favour of the accused to acquit them, therefore, the appeal is dismissed having no force. N.H.Q./H‑77/L Appeal dismissed.