2002 PLP 377 (YLR)

(1) Stab wound 2.5 x 1 c.m. on top of left shoulder on internal examination muscles and upper part of left lung were see, damaged. (2) Stab wound 5.5 c.m. x 2-1/2 c.m. on front left mid part, 2 c.m inside of left nipple, on intern, examination 4th, 5th and 6th ribs of left side from front were see fractured. Heart and pericardium were seen damaged. Liver and diaphragm were also sees damaged. (3) Stab wound 1.5 c.m. x 1 c. m. on outer side of right side of chest lower part, 12 c.m. below an outer to right nipple. On intern examination, right lung and liver were seen damaged 10th rib of right side from outer side was also seen fractured. In the opinion of the doctor, death occurred due to severe shock an haemorrhage due to injuries which wet sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature for normal person.

8. Muhammad Mansha, F.C., P.W took the dead body of Shamshad Ali to the mortuary for post-mortem examination an after the same produced the last worn clothes of the deceased before the Investigating Officer. He also took the parcels containing blood-stained earth and blood-stained Chhuri to the office of Chemical Examiner and delivered the same intact. Muhammad Saeed P.W.3 witnessed the recovery of Chhuri P-4 at the instance appellant. He also signed the recovery memo. Exh. P. F. Muhammad Sarwar Pawari P.W.4 prepared site-plans Exh.P.G. and Exh.P.G./.1 Shafqat Ali, C. P.W.5 kept the parcel of this case in Malkhana for safe custody. Bashir Ahmed W.6 and Muhammad Younas P.W.7 narrated the ocular account. Both of them had supported the prosecution case in varbatim. Mumtaz Ali, S.I., P.W.8 recorded formal F. I. R. Exh.P.H./1 Muhammad Yousaf A. S. I., P.W.9 ducted the investigation of this case as crated earlier.

9. Learned A.D.A. tendered in evidence reports of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.K. and Exh.P.L. and report of Serologist Exh.P.M. and then closed the case for prosecution.

10. Learned trial Court also examined appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the charge and pleaded innocence. While answering to the question to "why this case against you and why P. Ws. had deposed against you? relied as under:- "I have been falsely involved in this case. Actually the deceased had established illicit relations with Mst. Shaista Bibi daughter of Master Yaqoob and the murder of Shamshad was committed by Nawaz son of Master Yaqoob and not by me. P.Ws. are closely related to the deceased and due to close relationship P. Ws. have deposed falsely against me". The appellant neither made any statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor produced evidence in his defence.

11. Learned of evidence available on record, vide judgment dated 27-11-1999, convicted and sentenced the appellant as narrated earlier.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was a blind murder; that none of the eye-witness was present at the spot; that they being close relatives of the deceased were summoned later on in order to strengthen the prosecution case; that in fact Shamshad Ali had illicit liaison with the daughter of one Muhammad Yaqoob a landlord of the area, the complainant party was in his employment and that under the pressure of said Muhammad Yaqoob in order to save the neck of the son of said Muhammad Yaqoob the complainant party had deposed against the appellant; that the evidence of recovery at the instance of appellant was manufactured during the investigation in order to strengthen the prosecution case and the same cannot be taken into consideration in the circumstances of this case. It was lastly argued that in the circumstances, appellant was entitled to get the benefit of doubt. Conversely, learned counsel for the State while supporting the impugned judgment has vehemently opposed this appeal.

13. Heard. File perused.

14. In order to prove the charge against appellant prosecution has mainly relied upon the statement of Bashir Ahmed complainant (P.W.6) and Muhammad Younas (P.W.7) and sought corroboration from the evidence of recovery, motive and the medico-legal reports.

15. On the day of occurrence Bashir Ahmed (P.W.6) and Muhammad Younas (P.W.7) had gone to Abadi Rai Murad for the purchase of some buffaloes. At about 5-45 p.m. they were coming back to their village. When they reached near the Bridge Canal Upper Gogera Branch, they witnessed the occurrence. The place of occurrence is a thoroughfare, which is under the common use of the residents of the locality. The presence of both the witnesses at the spot being inmates of the village was very natural. No doubt both the witnesses being father and first cousin of the deceased were closely related to the deceased, but during the cross-examination defence has failed to bring on record an iota of evidence to show that any of them had any malice or motive to falsely implicate the appellant in this case. In a case of single accused substitution by kith and kin of the deceased is a rare phenomena. The statements of both the witnesses have painted a vivid picture of the entire occurrence. The same inspires confidence, rings true and can be relied upon safely for upholding the conviction of, the appellant even in absence of any corroborative piece of evidence.

16. The ocular account also stands corroborated by the medical evidence. The nature, duration and location of the injuries, as narrated by the prosecution witnesses stands affirmed by this piece of evidence. Perusal of record shows that the matter was reported to the police immediately after the occurrence. The promptness in lodging F.I.R. eliminates the possibility of false implication and it is another supporting circumstance to strengthen the prosecution case.

17. The recovery of Chhuri P-4 at the instance of appellant also stands established' from the statement of Muhammad Saeed (P. W .3). It has been observed that there is nothing on the record to show that this witness has deposed against the appellant to grind his own axe. His statement before the trial Court also inspire confidence.

18. In the light of the above facts, I have no reasons to doubt the credibility of prosecution case. Accordingly finding no force in this appeal the same stand dismissed.

19. It has been observed that trial Court while passing the impugned judgment has erroneously imposed fine of Rs.50,000 to the appellant. To this extent it is made clear that Rs.50,000 shall be paid by the appellant as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased as required under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. or in default of the payment to further undergo six months S.I. H.B.T./M-1344/L Appeal dismissed.