1999 P Cr (PLP)

P.W. S.I.P. Mumtaz Malik of Saddar Police‑ Station recorded the statement of complainant Rahman Shah under section 154, Cr.P.C. in the hospital which was later on incorporated into F.I.R. on 25‑11‑1996 at Police Station Saddar. The appellants and co‑accused Nauman Jamil were arrested and after usual investigation a charge‑sheet was put up before the Court of law for trial. The learned trial Court framed the charge against the appellants and co accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined complainant Rahman Shah, P.W. Munir Ahmed, P.W. Safdar Ali Khan, P.W. Inspector Mumtaz Malik, P.W. Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, and the prosecution closed its side. The appellants in their respective statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the case of prosecution and claimed to be innocent. They took the plea that they were victims of political rivalry. They neither examined themselves on oath nor led any evidence in defence. The learned trial Court framed the following points for determination:‑‑ (1) Whether on 24‑11‑1986 at or about 10‑15 p.m. in the night the accused had inflicted knife injuries to the complainant driver Rehman Shah, conductor Munir Ahmed and passengers Mahboob Shah and Abdul Shah son of Muhammad Ali of mini Bus No.873‑710 with the common intention and knowledge under such circumstances that they could cause the death of the injured? (2) Whether the accused had put mini Bus No.873‑710 on fire by throwingand igniting a inflammable substance on the mini bus? (3) What offence, if any, the accused have committed? On the assessment of evidence the appellants were found guilty and were convicted and sentenced as above, whereas co‑accused Nauman Jamil was acquitted. I have heard Mr. Syed Azmat Shah, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Lakho, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Advocate‑General, Sindh for the State. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case due to political rivalry by the police and in fact they have not committed the alleged offence. According to him, the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence while convicting them. According to him, the identification test of the appellants has not been held as such their subsequent involvement in the case is illegal and without justification. On the other side, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, vehemently opposed the above contentions and argued that the complainant and injured witness, namely. Munir Ahmed and P.W. Safdar Ali Khan have fully supported the case of prosecution and had correctly identified the appellants to be the persons who not only boarded in the bus but inflicted Chhuri blows to the complainant, P.W. Munir Ahmed and other two passengers, namely, Abdul Khalid and Mahboob Shah. According to him, the occular evidence is fully supported by medical evidence as such the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and has rightly convicted the appellants. He lastly contended that the P.Ws. had correctly identified the appellants in the Court specifying them the particular role acted by them during the incident. Non holding of identification test would not in any case wash the evidence of identification of the appellants in Court. In support of his contentions he has reffered the case of Shafi Muhammad v. The State PLD 1971 Kar.

721. The conviction of the appellants rests on the ocular testimony of injured complainant Rahman Shah, P.W. injured Munir Ahmed (conductor) and P.W. Safder Ali Khan coupled with the medical evidence of Dr. Muhammad Iqbal. The complainant the day of incident he was driving the abovementioned wagon with Munir Ahmed, its conductor and when the said wagon arrived at Abyssinia Lines bus stop, he was slapped by the appellants and they took out Chhuris and appellant Anees, present in Court, attempted to inflict him Chhuri blow on neck, but he raised his left hand resultantly his left hand was cut. He again hit him another injury, by which also the same hand was cut. Thereafter, he tried to speed away the vehicle but appellant Anees caught hold of his steering and then the wagon was parked aside and was blazed. The passengers of the wagon ran away, whereas conductor Munir Ahmed remained there who was caused Chhuri injuries by appellant Shabab Khan. In cross‑examination, he stated that one of the passengers had also received Chhuri injuries while he tried to intervene. His testimony has beer. fully supported by P.W. Munir Ahmed, who in his statement at trial had deposed that on the day of incident their Mazda wagon was coming from airport and when arrived at Abyssinia Lines Stop it was stopped by the appellants and co‑accused. Thereafter, he as well as the complainant were attacked by Chhuries by the appellants Anees and Shabab Khan present in Court. He correctly pointed out that appellant Shabab Khan to be the person who inflicted him Chhuri blows. He correctly recognised the appellants Anees and Shabab Khan, to be the persons who caused him injuries whereas showed doubt with regard to co‑accused Nauman Jamil. P.W. Safdar Ali Khan supported the version of complainant and the conductor and had stated that on the day of incident he was inside the wagon and when the same reached near Abyssinia Lines, 3/4 persons boarded therein and then they attacked the driver and, conductor with Chhuris. The witness identified both the appellants as well as the co‑accused Nauman Jamil correctly, to be the said persons. Thereafter, he acted as Mashir of Wardat as well as arrest of the appellants. This as well as the other two witnesses categorically stated that the appellants also burnt the wagon in their presence. Their statements have been fully corroborated by Investigating Officer Mumtaz Malik in his statement recorded at trial. P.W. Dr. Muhammad Iqbal has testified and had shown that the complainant had received two incised wound at the inguril fossa organs were protruding out. Injury was caused by sharp‑edged substance and was fresh in nature. From the above discussion of the evidence, I am of the considered opinion that eye‑witness account furnished by the injured, witnesses and other, P.Ws. has been fully corroborated by medical evidence and there is not any', doubt with regard to the case of prosecution being that of doubtful nature. The appellants have neither shown any enmity with the prosecution witnesses nor have suggested any questions that they were involved by the police due to political rivalry. They have neither examined themselves on oath nor have led any evidence in defence. As such there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution witness. The contention that identification test was not held, as such the entire case of prosecution becomes doubtful has no force as this Court in the case of Shafi Muhammad v. The State PLD 1971 Kar. 732, has replied the same question and to paragraph 6 at page 724 has held that "this identification test of the appellant in Court, upon which his participation in the crime can be relied on and not his earlier identification in the identification parade. The latter is merely corroborative evidence and cannot by itself establish the identity of the appellant. It only goes to strengthen the identification of the appellant in Court. For the foregoing reasons I am of the view that prosecution has fully established the case against the appellants. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed, their conviction and sentence is maintained. They are absent and are not attending the Court though N. B. Ws. have been issued, as such the learned trial Court is directed to issue N.B.Ws. in order to procure their attendance. After arrest they should be remanded to judicial custody to serve out the sentence. They are, however, awarded benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. N.H.Q./M‑392/K Appeal dismissed.