2001 P Cr (PLP)

(4) Fire‑arm wound of entry measuring 0.6 x 0.6 c.m. on the interior aspect of left thigh 16 c.m. above knee. On exploration muscles were injured and femur bone found fractured and bullet piece recovered from posterior aspect of left thigh. (5) Fire‑arm wound of entry measuring 1 x 0.7 c.m. on left thigh 14 c.m. above the left knee. Bullet was recovered from gluteal muscle from upper and outer aspect of left buttock. (6‑A) Lacerated wound measuring 1 x 0.5 c.m. on the dorsal aspect of left hand near the ring fingers 10 c.m. below the left wrist. (6‑B)Lacerated wound 2.5x.1 c.m. on the palmor surface of left hand on the junction of thumb and index finger 10 c.m. below the wrist joint. 6‑B is wound of exist of 6‑A. , Three metallic bullets and one bullet piece were recovered from the dead body, sealed and handed over to the Police by the Doctor. However, these have not been exhibited at the trial. In the opinion of the Doctor all the injuries were antemortem and were caused by a fire‑arm. The cause of death was injuries Nos. l, 2 and

3. Each of them individually as well as collectively were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Death occurred almost instantaneously. Probable time between death and post‑mortem examination was 24 to 36 hours.

11. After recording the statement of complainant Muhammad Nabi (P.W.9), Sub‑Inspector Ghulam Din (P.W.17) sent the same to the Police Station for registration of the formal F..I.R. (Exh.P.D./1). He secured 7 crime empties from the spot (Exh.P.8/1‑7) and took into possession vide recovery memorandum Exh.P.C. which was attested by Sharif Khan (P.W.7) and Wazir Khan (not produced). The same Police Officer also took into possession blood‑stained earth from the spot where Ghulam Sarwar deceased was murdered vide recovery memorandum (Exh.P.B.) which was attested by the same witnesses.

12. On receiving information that Naik Muhammad appellant was already under arrest in a case registered at Police Station Timmer Ghran of District Dir, Sub‑Inspector Faiz Ullah Khan (P.W.18) after obtaining permission from the Home Secretary, Government of the Punjab on the 9th of July, 1988 proceeded to District Dir and took Naik Muhammad appellant into custody on the 1st of August, 1988.

13. On the 6th of August, 1988, Naik Muhammad appellant led to the recovery of .30 bore pistol~(P.6) alongwith 5 live bullets (P.7/1‑5) from his residential quarter which were taken into possession vide recovery memorandum Exh.P:A. and was attested by A.S.‑I. Muhammad Younas (P.W.3) and A.S.‑I. Muhammad Ali (not produced).

14. According to the report of the Chemical Examiner for the Punjab, Lahore, the earth in question was stained with blood and according to the Serologist to the Government of Punjab, the blood ‑was human blood. 15: Naik Muhammad appellant pleaded total denial and false implication due to enmity. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C., in reply to the question "why this case against you and why the P.Ws. have deposed against you?" Naik Muhammad appellant replied as follows:‑‑ "Qeemat Khan son of Itbar Jan was my friend. Said Qeemat Khan had given Rs.60,000 to Ghani‑ur‑Rehman for obtaining visa. Ghani ur‑Rehman did not deliver the visa. Said Qeemat Khan demanded the amount from Ghani‑ur‑Rehman but Ghani‑ur‑Rehman postponed the matter. Qeemat Khan came to Lahore and took Ghani‑ur Rehman to Bajaur Agency, and Qeemat Khan wrote a letter to Mst. Rehmania P,W. wife of Ghani‑ur‑Rehman for payment of Rs.65,000 for the release of Ghani‑ur‑Rehman. Instead making the payment Mst. Rehmania P. W. got registered the case against the present accused and his brother Gul Khan for the abduction of Ghani‑ur‑Rehman for the reason that Qeemat Khan was the friend of Naik Muhammad and both Naik Muhammad and Gul Khan accused would be under pressure and thus, Ghani‑ur‑Rehman would be released from Bajaur Agency. I and my brother were falsely involved in the abduction case for the above said reason. Mst. Rehmania P.W is the close relative of Ghulam Sarwar deceased of this case. Ghulam Sarwar deceased is the father‑in‑law of the son of Mst. Rehmani3 P.W. When I and my brother were bailed out in the abduction case then to take the revenge of the old enmity Mst. Rehmania in privy with Muhammad Nabi P.W. and Safdar Khan P.W. involved me and my brother in the murder case of Ghulam Sarwar. The P. Ws, deposed against me due to enmity with me and their relationship with the deceased."

16. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the appellant should be acquitted because the eye‑witnesses were closely related to the deceased; Abdul Majeed who was injured and was an independent eye witness had not been produced by the prosecution; other natural eye witnesses were not produced by the prosecution; the F.I.R. was recorded after making preliminary investigation the motive was not proved and finally recoveries were not proved.

17. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State argued that the presence of the eye‑witnesses was natural; the motive was not denied and, therefore submitted that the sentence of death should be confirmed because there were no extenuating or mitigating circumstances.

18. The evidence of motive had been furnished by Mst. Rehmania (P.W.5) and complainant Muhammad Nabi (P.W.9). Mst. Rehmania (P.W.5) stated that her husband Ghani‑ur‑Rehman was abducted by Gul Khan (absconder) and his brother Naik Muhammad appellant and that she had got a case registered against them at Police Station Mughalpura. The said case was registered vide F.I.R. No. 503, dated the 29th of August, 1987. This fact has been proved by the defence itself by producing A.S.‑I. Muhammad Saleem of Police Station Mughalpura as D.W.2 who brought the register of case F.I.R. No. 503, dated the 29th of August, 1987, registered at the complaint of Mst. Rehmania wife of Ghani ur‑Rehman against Naik Muhammad and Gul Khan. The attested copy of the F.I.R. was placed on record as D.W.2/A,.

19. The version given by Mst. Rehmania (P.W.5) is further corroborated by the evidence of complainant Muhammad Nabi (P.W.9) who stated that Mst. Rehmania's husband Ghani‑ur‑Rehman was known to him since the last 10 years; that he was abducted by Naik Muhammad appellant and Gul Khan (absconder); that he alongwith his brother Ghulam Sarwar deceased was witness in the abduction case registered at the instance of Mst. Rehmania and that the accused persons were trying to prevent the complainant and his brother Ghulam Sarwar deceased from giving evidence In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Naik Muhammad appellant has not denied the abduction of Ghani‑ur‑Rehman and the registration of a case regarding his abduction by his wife Mst. Rehmania but has urged the same as a reason for false implication. As a matter of fact the prosecution has successfully proved the motive in this case, through the evidence of Mst. Rehmania (P.W.5) and Muhammad Nabi (P. W.9).

20. The occurrence took place at about 6.25 a.m. and was reported by 8‑25 a.m. i.e. within two hours which rules out the possibility of preliminary deliberations because the F.I.R. was lodged with reasonable promptness and there is no inordinate delay.

21. It is true that out of the eye‑witnesses produced by the prosecution, Muhammad Nabi (P.W.9) is a real brother of deceased while Safdar Khan (P.W.10) is a son of the deceased but their close relationship is no reason per se for disbelieving their evidence. It would be a rare phenomenon indeed where witnesses before whom a close relative is being murdered would let off the real assailant and substitute him with a false one. The presence of` the eye‑witnesses at the place of occurrence is natural as they all live together in the same neighborhood and were proceeding together to their place of work when the occurrence took place. The third eye‑witness, namely, Sher Bahadar (P.W.8) is not related to the complainant party nor does he have any enmity with the I D appellant.

22. The eye‑witnesses have given a straightforward and consistent account of the occurrence and we have no hesitation in holding that through their evidence the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused.

23. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed. The sentence of death is confirmed. The sentence of fine is also maintained. N.H.Q./N‑64/L Appeal dismissed.