1987 PLP 1598 (SCMR)

ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.‑‑Petitioner Ghulam Muhammad alias Gullo was tried alongwith one Alt Bux, under section 307/34/304, P.P.C. by the Sessions Judge, Thatta, for having made a murderous assault on injured P.W. Muhammad Ramzan. By judgment dated 22nd December, 1981, the learned Sessions Judge, found the petitioner guilty under section 307, P.P.C. and convicted him there under, sentencing him to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default to further suffer R.I. for one year. It was directed that the fine if recovered shall be paid to the injured as Compensation. The co‑accused Ali Bux was, however, given benefit of doubt and acquitted. The petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence in an appeal which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court except for modification in the sentence of imprisonment from seven years to four years and additional benefit of section 382‑B Cr.P.C. was also allowed. The petitioner now seeks to challenge the judgment of the High Court dated 4th December, 1986, by this petition for leave to appeal. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 21st May, 1981, at about 10‑00 a.m. when complainant Bhungro went towards Chillya Branch where his son Muhammad Ramzan had gone to catch fish and saw two accused being armed with hatchets exchanging hot words with his son and one Shahdad. The dispute was that the accused Ghulam Ahmad who is Beldar in the Irrigation Department was preventing Muhammad Ramzan from catching fish from the canal. According to the prosecution one Ahmad Ali also came there and in the presence of these witnesses Ali Bux co‑accused who was also a Beldar instigated the petitioner and thereupon the latter gave hatchet blow with the sharp side on the head of Muhammad Ramzan. According to the medical evidence there was an incised wound 18 c.m. x 3 c.m. anterio posterior extending from right eye brow upward to posterior aspect of parietal region cutting fronto parietal bone maninges and cereberum on the person of injured Muhammad Ramzan. In the opinion of the doctor the injury appears to have been caused by sharp‑cutting weapon like hatchet and was dangerous to life. The learned trial Court accepted the ocular testimony of complainant Bhungro and found it intrinsically sound and consistent with his version given in the F.I.R. Besides the testimony of the complainant was fully corroborated by the injured Ramzan himself. Further support was given to the prosecution version by witness Shahdad who was accompanying Muhammad Ramzan at the time of the occurrence. The last eye‑witness Ahmad Ali also supported the prosecution case fully. The corroboration from circumstantial evidence was furnished by the recovery of blood‑stained hatchet from the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded the right of self‑defence as he had two simple injuries on his person but according to the trial Court the defence witness produced by him did not support his case. The prosecution witness had explained the injuries on the person of the petitioner as a result of fall when he attempted to escape from the scene of occurrence. The medical evidence also seemed to support this version as the injuries were simple and could be the result of fall on a hard substance. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C., the petitioner further explained that he was taking cattle of Jakhras from K.B. Feeder to cattle pound when Shahdad and Ramzan tried to intercept and rescue the cattle. Over this matter Ramzan grappled with him and his companion Shahdad aimed a blow at him (petitioner) with his hatchet but the same hit Ramzan which caused the injury for which he was being prosecuted. Learned trial Court, as already discussed above, relied upon the ocular testimony and the corroboratory circumstances produced in support thereof. The version of the petitioner was not found plausible and supportable by anything in the evidence. Learned trial Court also rejected the plea of self‑defence for which there was no foundation in the evidence except two minor injuries sustained by the petitioner which could be the result of fall while he was attempting to escape from the scene. Similarly the High Court after re‑examining the evidence in the light of the arguments advanced in support of the appeal of the petitioner reaffirmed the finding of the trial Court that the guilt of the petitioner was fully established on sufficient evidence on record. The learned Judge in the High Court summarized his conclusion as under:‑ "Injured Ramzan P.W. Shahdad, P.W. Ali Ahmed and complainant Bhungro are eye‑witnesses. They have supported the case. They have stated that appellant Ghulam Muhammad caused injury to Ramzan. Their evidence has not been shaken in cross-examination. The previous enmity between the parties has not been proved. It is a day light incident. The presence of injured Ramzan, P.W. Shadad and Ahmed Ali has been admitted by appellant in his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C. Exh.28. He has stated that Ramzan grappled with him on which Shahdad gave him hatchet blow that it hit Ramzan. This version is not corroborated by any other circumstances. He has taken the plea that Ahmad Ali gave him lathi blows. On the other hand complainant in the F.I.R. clearly stated that while chasing, the appellant fell down and again ran away and also P.W. Shahdad in evidence stated that appellant while running away fell down in a ditch. The medical evidence shows that injuries an appellant could be by fall as well as by blunt weapon. The prosecution, therefore, fully explained the injuries on appellant immediately after the incident. The evidence of all the four eyes witnesses is trustworthy. The F.I.R. was lodged without any loss of time in which names of accused as well as eye‑witnesses were given. The ocular testimony is fully corroborated by medical evidence. The injury on Ramzan is grievous and according to doctor it was apparently dangerous to life as well because brain matter was oozing out from this wound." In support of this petition learned counsel contended that the Courts below were not justified in placing implicit reliance on the ocular testimony as all the eye‑witnesses are close relations of injured Muhammad Ramzan. He further submitted that there were discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses which have not been properly appreciated by the Courts below. Finally learned counsel urged that the explanation of the petitioner was plausible which does create doubt about his being guilty. After hearing the learned counsel we feel that the contentions advanced by the learned counsel have been fully examined by the trial Court as well as the High Court and found to lack force for valid reasons. Mere relationship of witnesses with the victim is no ground to reject their testimony as interested witnesses and no previous enmity has been pointed out. As regards' the other grounds they relate to the appreciation of evidence and we do not find that any recognized principle touching the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases has been violated. Consequently there is no merit in this petition. S.Q./G‑33/S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.