2026 PLP 1351 (YLR)

Khadim Hussain Tunio, J.

This single judgment shall dispose of the listed Criminal Jail Appeals filed separately by the appellants, challenging three judgment dated 15.01.2021 ("impugned judgments"), passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur ("Trial Court"), in Sessions Case No. 933/2013 ("State v. Abdul Hakeem and another") i.e. the main case, Sessions Case No. 845/2013 ("State v. Abdul Hakeem") and Sessions Case No. 846/2013 ("State v. Ali Dino"). The case originated from FIR No. 4/2013 ("the primary FIR"), registered at police station Gulo Sial, alleging offenses punishable under sections 302, 337-H(ii) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code ("P.P.C"). Both the appellants were convicted under section 302(b) P.P.C read with section 34 P.P.C for the murder of the deceased, Abdul Sattar, and sentenced to life imprisonment. Additionally, they were ordered to pay Rs. 100,000/- each as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, with a default sentence of six months' simple imprisonment if they failed to do so. Furthermore, the appellants were convicted under section 23(i)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, in FIR Nos. 5/2013 and 6/2013 which were separately lodged against them for the recovery of the crime weapons, and sentenced to five years' imprisonment with a fine of Rs.30,000/-. It was ordered that failure to pay the fine would result in an additional three months of simple imprisonment. However, the appellant was granted the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C").

2. The facts relevant to the case are as follows: some time prior to the incident, the appellants had threatened the complainant party to resolve a dispute and a case had also been registered in this connection. Fueled by this animosity, on 12.09.2013, while Abdul Sattar was busy in the field and the complainant Abdul Razzak was outside his house along with Mujib Rehman, Muhammad Suleman and Dhani Bux, they say the appellants alongside other co-accused, duly armed with Kalashnikovs and lathis approached Abdul Sattar. Of this group, Abdul Hakeem, Abdul Waheed and Ali Dino shot two shots each from their Kalashnikovs at Abdul Sattar who fell down. Ensuring that Abdul Sattar had died, the group of assailants fled.

3. Once the FIR was lodged, the investigation ensued and the appellants were arrested. During interrogation, they admitted their guilt before the Investigating Officer ("IO") and led to the recoveries of their respective Kalashnikovs for which separate FIRs were lodged. These firearms were submitted to the Forensic Science Laboratory ("FSL") for examination where both were found to be in working order and matched the empty casings found at the place of incident.

4. Upon the completion of the investigation, a challan was submitted to the competent court against the appellants. The Trial Court, after compliance of section 265-C, framed formal charges against them. The accused pleaded not guilty and opted for trial. To prove the charges in the main FIR, the prosecution presented a total of nine witnesses: Abdul Razzak (the complainant), Mujeeb Rehman (eye-witness), Muhammad Suleman (eye-witness), Ameer Ahmed Narejo (mashir of arrest and recovery), Inspector Gulab Khan (the investigating officer), Ghulamullah Sarohi (Tapedar), Dr. Shahid Sikandar (medical officer), Muhammad Hassan and Asghar Ali. With the completion of their testimonies and the presentation of relevant evidence, the prosecution closed its side. To prove the charge in the secondary FIRs, the prosecution examined the complainant/investigating officer Inspector Gulab Khan, who produced various documents, and mashir Ameer Ahmed. Following their evidence, the prosecution closed its side.

5. Statement of appellants under section 342 Cr.P.C was recorded, in which they denied the prosecution case and claimed to have been falsely implicated. They also stated that weapons had been foisted upon them. However, they neither opted to examine themselves on oath nor produced any person in their defence.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that that appellants are innocent and are falsely implicated in the case by the complainant as the complainant admitted that the deceased was involved in a prior criminal matter with the appellants; that all the witnesses are interested and set-up witnesses, as such, their testimony cannot be believed to be true one; that there are various contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses; that allegedly recovery of the Kalashnikovs has been foisted upon the appellants in order to strengthen the prosecution's case. Summarily, he prayed for the acquittal of the appellants while extending them benefit of doubt. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the cases of Ghulam Akbar and another v. The State (2008 SCMR 1064), Larik Mal v. The State (2017 YLR 1166), Sobho and 2 others v. The State (PLD 2004 Karachi 08), Ghulam Mustafa alias Mushtaq Ali v. The State (2013 PCr.LJ 860), Mst. Fareeda and another v. The State (2021 YLR 1828) and Hazoor Bux v. the State (2006 PCr.LJ 1039).

7. In support of the impugned judgments, the learned Additional Prosecutor General, assisted by counsel for the complainant, vehemently contested the appeal while stating that prosecution established the case against the appellants by ocular account furnished by the eye-witness, medical evidence with respect to the firearm injuries received by the deceased and circumstantial evidence in the shape of recovery of crime weaponss i.e. Kalashnikovs, as such, he contended that the learned trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of instant criminal appeals. Learned APG in support of his arguments relied upon the case of Aqil v. the State (2023 SCMR 831), while learned counsel for complainant referred the cases of Khalid Mehmood and others v. the State (2011 SCMR 664) and Sajid Mehmood v. the State (2022 SCMR 1882),

8. I have heard the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

9. The ocular account of the incident is primarily furnished by three eye-witnesses: the complainant Abdul Razzak ("PW-1"), Mujeeb Rehman ("PW-2") and Muhammad Suleman ("PW-3"). The presence of the three eye-witnesses is established beyond a reasonable doubt as the incident is outside of their own home where they were all present at some short distance from the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that several contradictions had been made by the eye-witnesses in their evidence, however when the deposition of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are put in juxtaposition with the FIR and the version presented therein by the complainant, they perfectly align with each other from minor details to major events such as the appellants' identities. The witnesses demonstrate a consistent and harmonious narrative regarding all salient aspects of the incident, as well as the collateral details. Cross-examination proved inconsequential, yielding no adverse information from the witnesses beyond a series of vehemently denied suggestions. Minor contradictions do exist in the PWs' testimonies, which are noted here: Mujeed Rehman stated that the dead body was at the Gambat Hospital for post-mortem at 10:00 whereas the complainant Abdul Razzak stated that it was 09:

45. However, Dr. Shahid Sikandar stated that he started the post-mortem at 10:00 and he received the dead body at 09:

15. PC Muhammad Hassan deposed to the extent of the shifting of the dead body that the same was placed inside a Datsun for transport at 10:00 yet he goes on to state that he reached at the hospital at 9:

55. These variations in time all appear to be within an hour and could at best be chalked as improper recollection of time and not the events, because the evidence and depositions to the extent of events has been immaculate. Again, Mujeeb Rehman also contradicted the complainant by stating that police took 15 to 20 minutes to reach the spot while the complainant stated that the police arrived within 10 to 12 minutes. Eye-witness Muhammad Suleman contradicted Mujeeb Rehman on the height of the sugarcane crop as well. He also stated, contradicting both the complainant and Mujeeb Rehman, that he saw the accused at 10 paces while the other two consistently stated that they saw the accused 30 paces. However, none of these go to the subject matter i.e. the factum of shooting and death of the deceased, as such they are immaterial and do not significantly impact the prosecution's case. These variations can be attributed to lapse of memory or confusion induced by lengthy cross-examination. Therefore, not every discrepancy rises to the level of a material contradiction, and therefore, minor inconsistencies or embellishments should not be grounds for rejecting the prosecution's evidence in its entirety.[1] If anything, these contradictions would be natural over the course of the trial as firstly one cannot be expected to know the smallest details by one's naked eye during a situation only those with a nerve can witness. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the prosecution witnesses being related to the complainant inter-se and interested is of little, if any, assistance to the appellant. Despite the relationship of the complainant and PWs with the deceased, their evidence, after careful consideration, is found trustworthy. As established by numerous pronouncements of the Supreme Court, a mere relationship with the deceased does not invalidate otherwise trustworthy evidence.[2] Even otherwise, I find it to be untenable that the PWs would go as far as implicating the appellants falsely in the murder of their own blood relative. The Supreme Court in the landmark case of Allah Ditta v. The State[3] recognized this rationale, which has been reaffirmed repeatedly in later pronouncements.[4]

10. Besides the ocular evidence, the investigation officer had also recovered bloodstained earth, clothes of the deceased and the crime weapons with which the deceased was shot by the appellants i.e. two Kalashnikovs. The Kalashnikovs were sent to the FSL whereas the bloodstained articles were sent for chemical examination. Suffice it to say that these reports turned positive and fully corroborated the prosecution case inasmuch as six of the twelve empty casings recovered from the place of incident matched the two Kalashnikovs recovered on the pointation of the appellants after their admitted their guilt to the police. Suffice it to say that fabricating an FSL report so as to make the empties recovered from the place of incident is far-fetched when no motive for false implication by the police is alleged and proved. Moreover, the place wherefrom the appellants produced the Kalashnikovs was also not easily accessible nor was it in the open for it to have been discovered otherwise. Two witnesses testified as to the recovery of the weapons as well. The chemical examiner also found all the bloodstained articles to be covered in human blood. Moreover, the parties were known to each other as is admitted by the appellant in his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C before the trial Court.

11. For what has been discussed above, the guilt of the appellants has been proven to the hilt and beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. Therefore, captioned criminal jail appeals are dismissed, the judgments impugned herein are maintained along with the conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants. Office is directed to place signed copy of this order in the captioned connected matter. JK/A-11/Sindh Appeals dismissed. [1] See Zakir Khan v. The State, 1995 SCMR 1793 and Khadim Hussain v. The State PLD 2010 SC 669 [2] Nizamuddin v. The State, 2010 SCMR 1752; Nasir Iqbal v. The State, 2016 SCMR 2152; Azhar Hussain v. The State, 2022 SCMR 1907; Ali Asghar alias Aksar v. The State, 2023 SCMR 596 and Imran Mehmood v. The State 2023 SCMR 795 [3] PLD 2002 SC 52 [4] See Islam Sharif v. The State, 2020 SCMR 690 and Shamshed Ahmed v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1931