1974 P Cr (PLP)

Liaqat son of Fazal (1) A pellet wound ' x on back of left thumb near its base. (2) A pellet wound " x " x communicating with injury No. 1 on inner aspect of base of left thumb. Metacarpal phalangeal joint is swollen and immobile. Liaqat son of Fida (1) Pellet wound " x " on right side of chest 2 above nipple and slightly towards the shoulder. The shirt had a corresponding tear. (2) An abrasion " x " on right side of fore‑arm. In his cross‑examination, he admitted that the injuries caused to Liaqat Ali were by pellets and that if a hand grenade does not contain pellets then he must have been subject to fire through a shot‑gun. It is, therefore, clear that these two persons, i.e. Liaqat Hussain and Liaqat Ali, were, according to the prosecution, present at the time of the occurrence in the room where the hand grenades are said to have been thrown by the appellant and that they were injured while they were in the room.

10. P. W. 14 went on to say that Akbar and Amir Zaman though they were in that very room were not injured. This Amir Zaman is a Lambardar and has been appearing as a witness for the police as is clear from the statement in cross‑examination. He admitted that his daughter bad been murdered and his son‑in‑law had been challaned in that case, but he declined to admit that Anwar appellant was mentioned as a defence witness by his son‑in‑law or that Anwar was prosecuting that case on behalf of the accused. He bad, however, to be confronted with the statement before the Inquiry Magistrate where he had stated that if Mohd. Anwar was coming and attending the Courts during the trial of Mohd. Amin, i.e., his son‑in‑law from his side, he had no objection to his having done so. He admitted that Channoo Khan was his sister's husband and that one Mst. Siftan prosecuted them. He, however, forgot whether his sister's daughter was also accused in the case and Anwar appellant was a witness in that case against his brother‑in‑law. He did admit that his wife Mst. Raj Begum is a cousin of Mst. Rehmat Bibi wife of Mohammad Akbar (P. W. 20).

11. Another significant departure from the F. I. R. is that while in it the time had been given as peshiwela in his statement Amir Zaman converted it into degarwela. His cross‑examination bristles with incorrect statements which led in every case to confrontation with his statement before the committing Magistrate which invariably showed that he was resiling from that statement. He had to admit that a pocket is different from a dab, but he insisted that both .the hand grenades had been taken out by the appellant from his right pocket as against mention of only one hand grenade and its being taken out from the right dab in the F. I. R.

12. He admitted that there were five cots in the room where the occurrence took place. While entering the room one was on the left side of the door and the other was on the right side while two were opposite the door and one was near the wall towards the right side of the door. The material discrepancies some of which have been pointed out above do not permit us to believe the statement of Amir Zaman.

13. Mohammad Fazal son of Abdullah appeared as P. W. 15 who substantially supported the statement made by his predecessor. In the cross -examination, he admitted that he had filed a suit for the recovery of money against Anwar appellant and 'got a decree which was still unsatisfied. He also admitted that his sister Shah Begum had been abducted by Anwar appellant and his brothers and though they were prosecuted but were acquitted. He is the father of Akram (P. W. 19) and Liaqat who appeared before the committing Magistrate as P. W. in the case who was given up by the prosecution before the trial Court. He also admitted that his son had divorced the daughter of the appellant and that the witness had a grouse against the appellant.

14. Havaldar Mohammad Akram (P. W. 19) substantially supported the testimony of P. W.

14. He admitted that he was the son‑in‑law of the appellant and had two daughters from Mst. Arshad Begum. He, however, stated that site was a lady of loose character and that he had divorced her before the occurrence in the year 1968. He also admitted that litigation remained pending before the Union Council regarding their dispute for some time. In his cross‑examination, he admitted that he had participated in the Indo‑Pakistan War in 1965.

15. He was followed by P. W. 20 Mohammad Akbar who also supported the statement of P. W.

14. In his cross‑examination, he admitted that his wife is the cousin of the wife of P. W. 14 and that the deceased did not belong to his brotherhood.

16. Liaqat Hussain son of Mohammad Fazal (P. W. 15) was called by the Court and gave a statement as C. W.

1. He is the son of Fazal (P. W. 16) and a brother of Akram (P. W. 19). He stated that he and Liaqat son of Fida were playing outside their house at Isha time. Liaqat came to his house and at that time Jamadar Khan Mohammad deceased and the father of the witness Fazal were sitting inside the room. None else was present. He and the other Liaqat also sat inside the room. After a short while something hard as stone fell down in the room followed by another. The latter exploded. Simultaneously, there were reports of gun‑shots. C. W.

1. Liaqat son of Fida, Mohammad Fazal (P. W. 15) and Khan Mohammad deceased were injured. A short‑while after the incident, Amir Zaman Lambardar came there and the other members of the family also congregated. Amir Zaman P. W. suggested that Anwar was their enemy and might have done this mischief. C. W. 1 categorically stated that he did not see Anwar appellant at the time of occurrence. This witness had been turned out by his father from his house because he was not supporting them in this case.

17. He stated in his cross‑examination that although Anwar appellant was 'his maternal uncle he considers him as a part of his family. He was residing with Mst. Shah Begum who was not related to Anwar accused. Khan Mohammad deceased was not related to him. He also admitted that as a result of explosion of the band grenade, the room was full with smoke and nothing was visible for about seven minutes and it was during this period that the guns were fired. He also stated that Amir Zaman, Mohammad Akram and Mohammad Akbar. P. Ws. reached the place long after the occurrence while Mohammad Zaman P. W. was, not present even in the village and bad gone to Rawalpindi at that time.

18. Capt. Mahmood Shah appeared as P. W.

21. He is Ammunition Technical Officer. He described the hand grenade as No. 36‑M. Of course, he was referring to the live grenade which he detonated. He submitted‑his report on the technical data vide Exh. P. D.

19. In Exh. P. D. this witness has given the technical data as under:‑ (a) Grenades Hand No. 36‑M, High Explosive with Igniter Sets assembly-service pattern. (b) Both the Grenades and Igniter Sets assemblies were live and serviceable. These will prove fatal in case of detonation.

20. Exh. P. X/1 is the report of the Inspector of Explosives, Rawalpindi Circle which is to the following effect:‑ "This is certified that the Exhibits in the sealed bottle and in the container received in this office are the splinters of exploded hand grenade of 36‑M. M. K. I. type. No. 36‑M. M. K. I. Z. A, P, p, F. is marked on the base plug of the exploded hand grenade."

21. The following salient features appear from the facts given above:‑ (1) While in the F. I. R. the throwing of only one hand grenade is mentioned, in the statement before the Court it has been converted into two hand grenades. While in the F. I. R. it came out of the dab in the statement they came out of the pocket. (2) It passes one's comprehension why Mohammad Anwar appellant threw the hand grenade in a room in which most of the persons were his companions who came with him at his request to intercede for the return of his son. The plan shows that the room was about 15' x 25' in size and there were live cots lying in it. The inured persons and the deceased are said to be sitting on the cots. Pamphlet No. G. S. P/U‑10051 entitled "Infantry Training" Vol. 1, Pamphlet No. 7 dealing with grenades issued in 1961 under the signatures of Maj‑Gen. Mohammad Yahya Khan, Chief of the General Staff, gives the details of hand grenades. It deals with grenades of No. 36 type on page 5 at No.

7. It stated that people within radius of 20 yards would either be killed or injured when this grenade explodes. It further shows that if the grenade explodes on hard earth this circumference would be widened to 250 yards. The hand grenades were products of the Pakistan Ordnance Factory as they bore the inscription P. O. F. on the base plug (Exh. P. X/1). The effect therefore should conform to that given in the Infantry Training pamphlet. Mohammad Anwar was standing at the doorway when he threw the grenade. He is said to have thrown one grenade which did not explode and it is then that he threw the second one. This means that he wanted to observe the result before running away. He should also have been injured as a result of the explosion. (3) There are no injuries on the person of Havaldar Mohammad Akram (P. W. 19) and Mohammad Akbar (P. W. 20). They are supposed to have been in the room and to be eye‑witnesses if they were there. It is impossible to believe that they were present there as they have not received any injury whatsoever although they were within the very effective range of the hand grenade. (4) Amir Zaman has an axe to grind against the appellant for he has been arrayed on the opposite side m litigation including murders. It is difficult to believe Amir Zaman even otherwise because of the highly discrepant statement that he has made before the trial Court. (5) Mohammad Fazal (P. W. .15) admits that he has a grouse against the appellant. Moreover, his sister Mst. Shah Begum had been abducted by Anwar appellant and his brothers and they were prosecuted but were acquitted At least this is what P. W. 15 himself says. It would, therefore, be highly dangerous to base any conviction on his statement unless there was positive and credible corroboration forthcoming. (6) Havaldar Mohammad Akram (P. W. 19) is the former husband of the appellant's daughter who divorced her 12 months before the incident. This may itself be enough to discard his statement. Although he was stated to be in the room when the explosion took place but he received no injury. His statement also contains a lot of discrepancies. (7) P. W. 20 Mohammad Akbar apart from the fact that; he is husband of a cousin of Amir Zaman's wife also received no injury while he was in the same room. His presence has, therefore, to excluded. (8) The names of the boys who were injured, i.e. the two Liaqats were not mentioned in the F. I. R. This casts a serious doubt on the whole case.

22. These are some of the features of the case which make the story itself highly improbable and damaged the credibility of the witnesses who have appeared on behalf of the prosecution. The statement of Liaqat (C. W. 1) demolishes the whole prosecution case and supports the theory advanced by the appellant.

23. In these circumstances we find no justification for the conviction of the appellant which we hereby set aside by accepting the appeal and setting aside his conviction and sentence under sections 302 as well as 307, P. P. C. The sentence of death is not confirmed. We have already directed by a short order that he shall be released if he is not wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed.