1989 P Cr (PLP)

(1) Six rounded wounds 3/4 c.m. x 3/4 c.m. each on outer and back side of the loin on the left side in an area of 6 x 6 c.m. Blackening around the wound was seen. (2) A rounded wound 1 x 1 c.m. on the outer side of the loin on the right side. Margins of the wounds were everted. It was wound of exit. In the opinion of the doctor death took place due to internal haemorrhage and shock caused by injury No.1, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

8. On 25‑10‑1984 Dr. Muhammad Arif, P.W.5 Medical Officer A.I.M. Hospital Sialkot, conducted the post‑mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Sardar Ahmad, and noticed the following injuries on his person: (1) Circular wound 1/2 c.m. in diameter in the uppermost part of right buttock (wound of entry). (2) Circular wound 1 c.m. in diameter in the right side of abdomen near the umbilicus (wound of exit). In the opinion of the doctor, death occurred due to severe haemorrhage and peritonitis which also led to shock and cardio respiratory failure. Injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

9. Deceased appellant Ghulam Hussain and his son Mushtaq Hussain appellant were arrested on 1‑11‑1984 by Raja Khan Inspector P.W.2. Appellant Irshad was arrested on 11‑1‑1985 by N.D. Saleem A.S.I. P.W.7. Appellant Ghulam Mustafa was also arrested on 11‑1‑1985 by Razzaq Ahmad A.S.I. P.W.3.

10. Appellant Irshad while in police custody, led the police, and got a carbine P.7 recovered from his residential house on 21‑1‑1985, and the same was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.L. attested by Mukhtar Ahmad (not produced) and Lai Din P.W.11 besides the investigation officers, P.W.13.

11. On 24‑1‑1985 appellant Ghulam Mustafa while in police custody led the police and got a licensed gun P.8 recovered, which was taken into possession vide Memo. Exh.P.M. attested by Mukhtar Ahmad (not produced) and Lai Din P.W. besides the Investigation Officer.

12. To substantiate its case at the trial, the prosecution placed reliance upon the ocular testimony furnished by Manzoor Hussain P.W.9 and Muhammad Idrees P.W.10. It may be stated here that the first informant Sain died before the commencement of the trial. In addition to the ocular testimony, the prosecution also placed reliance upon the recovery of the fire‑arms effected from Irshad and Ghulam Mustafa appellants. Prosecution also placed reliance upon the evidence as to the motive as well as the medical evidence.

13. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant Irshad denied the recovery of carbine at his instance, while Ghulam Mustafa appellant admitted the recovery of gun P.8 from him. Appellant Irshad stated that he was involved on account of animosity of the local police with him. He stated that one Samina Kausar was abducted by Muhammad Ashraf A.S.I., and since, he had helped Mst. Samina Kausar in the aforesaid case, therefore, Muhammad Ashraf A.S.I. referred to above, became inimical towards him. It was further stated by the appellant Irshad, that Muhammad Ashraf deceased was a partyman of Muhammad Ashraf A.S.I., that is why, he was falsely involved in this case.

14. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and the State, I have carefully gone through the record of this case. The crucial question arising in this case is whether all the three appellants were present at the time of occurrence. As far as fatal shots are concerned, they are attributed to both absconders viz. Liaqat and Zulfiqar. Role of the appellants as stated by the prosecution is only to have indulged into ineffective firing and raising of Lalkaras.

15. It was vehemently argued that since the parties were inimical towards each other on account of the pendency of the criminal cases, and since then the rivalry and conflict existed, therefore, the appellants had been falsely involved, and the role of Lalkaras and ineffective firing was a naked lie. It was further argued, that the prosecution ought to have led strong corroborative evidence coming from an independent source to establish the guilt of the appellants. In the absence of such corroborative evidence, conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained.

16. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the recovery of fire‑arms from Irshad and Ghulam Mustafa appellants was of no avail to the prosecution and could not serve as corroborative piece of evidence, inasmuch as, it had not been proved by the prosecution that these shots were fired from these weapons, because no crime empty was recovered from the spot.

17. It was strenuously argued, that Muhammad Idrees P.W.10 was a chance witness, and was resident of village Jagatpur, and had failed at the trial to establish his presence at the spot. It was also contended, that this witness was a partyman of the complainant side, and had visited the house of Manzoor Hussain P.W.9 to hire a tractor from him for cultivating his land. It was thus submitted that this was a false pretext, and he could have hired a tractor from his own village, rather than to visit the house of Manzoor Hussain P.W. 9. cross‑examination, the witness admitted that a brother of Manzoor Hussain P.W.9 was married with the daughter of Lal Din resident of Jagatpur, but the witness denied his relationship with Lal Din.

18. I have minutely examined the statement of Muhammad Idrees P.W.10, he was cross‑examined at length, but the defence failed to shake his credit. He denied his relationship with Lal Din, whose daughter was married with the brother of Manzoor Hussain. Nothing on the record exists as to his previous implication in any of the cases between the complainant and the accused side. It is not unusual that a villager would go to his friend for hiring a tractor. His statement under section 161, Cr.P.C., was also recorded on the spot, therefore, I am of the view, that Muhammad Idrees P.W.10 was not a chance witness. This witness was present at the spot and had seen the occurrence. Assuming him to be a chance witness, even then. he has rendered satisfactory explanation about his presence, therefore, his statement serves as corroborative evidence to lend strength to the testimony of Manzoor Hussain P.W.9.

19. No doubt, it is true that political rivalry exists between the complainant and the accused side, and cases are pending, therefore, to look for corroborative evidence is essential. As far as recovery of weapons from the appellants is concerned, they do not serve as corroborative evidence, but the statement of Muhammad Idrees P.W.10 as already stated above amply corroborates the prosecution case as disclosed by Manzoor Hussain P.W.9. The occurrence had taken place in the house of Manzoor Hussain P.W.9, therefore, his presence in his house cannot be doubted. He being the natural witness, his testimony cannot be taken into account very lightly. Role attributed to the appellants is that of the ineffective firing and raising Lalkaras. Their presence qua appellants stands established in view of the statements of the eye‑witnesses and also the overt act attributed to them. Hence, as already held by the learned trial Judge that the appellants are vicariously liable, that is why, they have been awarded the lesser penalty. I am convinced that all the appellants were present, and had indulged themselves into ineffective firing and had also raised Lalkaras. It is thus obvious, that the appellants alongwith two proclaimed offenders had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in the prosecution of their common object, and had murdered Muhammad Ashraf and Sardar Ahmad deceased.

20. Upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has established its case beyond any shadow of doubt, and there is no substance in the appeal preferred by the appellants. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Conviction and the sentences of the appellants are maintained. H.B.T./G‑184/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.