1986 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑Evidence‑‑Appreciation‑-of‑‑Whether evidence oft complainant alone could be sufficient to bring home guilt of accused‑‑Complainant fortuitously at spot‑‑Deposition differing at trial from F.I.R.‑ Introducing new set of witnesses when the one named in F.I.R. turned hostile‑--Attempting to improve his case by introducing new set of eye‑witnesses whose presence at spot at time of occurrence appeared doubtful-‑Evidence, held, could not be accepted. Talib Haider Rizvi for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 12th February, 1986. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that:‑-- (1) That Mushtaq, Muhammad Sadiq and Mst. Khurshid P.Ws. the eye‑witnesses, were given up in haste, and no proper steps were taken to serve them. (2) That Jamal Din P. W. 5 and Falak Sher P. W. 6, the eye‑witnesses, were wrongly discarded by the learned trial Judge, though the former happened to be an independent witness and he clearly stated in cross‑examination that he had appeared before the S.H.O. concerned four days after the occurrence, who refused to record his statement, regarding which We had made a complaint before the‑Superintendent of Police, Kasur, also. (3) That the statement of Suleman Khan P.W. 7, the complainant, alone is sufficient to bring home the guilt against the accused respondents, as he was a natural witness and his statement is corroborated by the recoveries.

2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The evidence has also been perused at length.

3. With regard to the first submission, it is obvious from the statement of Mazhar Qayyum, Superintendent of Police P.W. 12, that in August 1981 when he was investigating the case, complainant party A had told him that the eye‑witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. had resiled and that the complainant side requested for time so that they could produce some other eye‑witnesses in the case, which request he accepted. Jamal Din P.W. 5 and Falak Sher P.W. 6 were later produced by the complainant before ‑the said witness, whose statements were recorded on 12‑9‑1981. Since it was apparent that Mushtaq, Muhammad Sadiq and Mst. Khurshid Begum P.Ws. were won over and not likely lo support the case, the learned trial Judge, therefore: rightly refused to summon them under section 265‑F(34, Cr.P.C.

4. With regard to the second submission, the evidence of Jamal Din P.W. 5 and Falak Sher P.W. 6 has been rightly discarded. These witnesses were introduced late by the complainant before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, as stated above. According to the statements of these witnesses they were present at the spot when the incident, took place, whereas Mushtaq, Muhammad Sadiq and Mst. Khurshid Begum, the eye‑witness, originally named in the F. I. R., turned up later, it is not possible to believe that the police officer, who recorded the F.I.R. did not record the names of Jamal Din P.W.5 and Fallak Sher P.W. 6, the actual eye‑witnesses who saw the actual occurrence, but substituted in their stead the names of Mushtaq, Muhammad Sadiq and Mst. Khurshid Begum P.Ws. If the petitioner contention be accepted, it would only show that nobody witnessed the occurrence and that the names of, persons mentioned in the F.I.R. were not the true witnesses. Nowhere, has Suleman Khan P.W. 7 in his evidence submitted that the police: officer who recorded the F.I.R. took down names of persons who had not witnessed the occurrence, though Jamal Din P.W. 5 and Falak Sher P.W. 6, who had witnessed the same, were deliberately omitted. According to Jamal Din and Falak Sher P.W.6, there were five accused, whereas strangely the case has been registered against three. Jamal Din P. W. 5 and Falak Sher P.W. 6 have been rightly disbelieved.

5. With regard to the third submission the evidence of Suleman Khan P.W. 7 cannot be accepted. He appears to be fortuitously at the spot in the morning, when the occurrence occurred. His deposition .at the trial differs in many, respects from that given in his F.I.R. He has been confronted in this respect in his cross‑examination. According to the testimony of the Superintendent of. Police P.W., the, complainant could not even give the names of the new set of eye‑witnesses on 29‑9‑1981, when he appeared to state that the first set, whose names had been given in the F. I. R. had been won over He appears to be person who has attempted to improve the case by introducing a new set of eye‑witnesses, whose presence at the spot at the time of occurrence is doubtful.

6. Reviewing the matter in depth, the judgment does not appear to be either perverse or capricious. There being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed in limine. S.A. Dismissed in limine.