1987 PLP 43 (SCMR)

Hence, the present petition.

2. The motive for the occurrence is stated to be is that Shahid Aftab P.W.5 had registered one case under section 307, P.P.C. against Muhammad Siddique and yet another case under section 324, P.P.C. against Ashraf accused. The two accused were pressing him to compromise, but Shaukat Hussain deceased who was a friend of Shahid Aftab P.W. prevented him from effecting any compromise.

3. The prosecution version briefly is that on the‑date of occurrence Shahid Aftab P.W. 5 and the deceased were returning after a night walk in the Ganj Bazar, Kutchahri Road, Multan City the two accused came in front and Ashraf (acquitted accused) took the deceased in his arms and Siddique gave him the knife blows. Fida Hussain P.W. 4 who was sitting in his shop at a distance of 51 feet across the road claims to have seen the occurrence. Shaukat Hussain (deceased) was taken to hospital in injured condition. The doctor informed the Police Station on which Abdul Karim S.I. came to the spot and recorded the formal F.I.R. (after the death of the deceased according to P.W. 4). Shaukat died at 11‑

15. The accused petitioner was arrested on 4‑4‑1979 and he got recovered a knife allegedly from the shop of Muhammad Iqbal who has appeared as P.W. 1 and refused the recovery.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution produced two eye‑witnesses namely Fida Hussain, P.W. 4 (first informant‑brother of the deceased) and Shahid Aftab P.W. 5 (a friend of the deceased). It also relied on the recovery of blood‑stained knife (P. 3) from Muhammad Siddique petitioner; medical evidence and the evidence of motive.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the F.I.R. was recorded after due deliberation in which Shahid Aftab was mentioned as a witness although he was not present at the spot. In support of this assertion the learned counsel referred us to the statement of Shahid Aftab P.W. who stated at page 22 of the Printed Book that: "Father of the deceased Shaukat was also present inside the shop who was sleeping in the shop. We did not inform him about the incident and proceeded to the hospital straightaway." According to this witness (i.e. P.W. 5) they rushed the injured person (Shaukat Hussain deceased) to the hospital, in such a hurry that they did not even wake up his father to inform him about the incident. The reason being that they wanted to save the life of the deceased. As against this Abdul Karim, S.I. (P.W. 9) the Investigating Officer has stated in his cross‑examination that: "I straightaway proceeded to the hospital. The relatives of the deceased had not approached me at the police station for lodging the report of the occurrence to me. Father of Fida Hussain, Fida Hussain, Muhammad Salim son o Abdul Majid were also present there. When I reached the hospital, Shahid Aftab P.W. was not present there. He did not come to contact me in the hospital. From this the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that statement made by Shahid Aftab P. W . 5 shows that it was he who had taken the deceased person to the hospital in an injured condition without even informing his father, was wholly incorrect, as according to the Investigating Officer it was the deceased's father whom he found present in the hospital while he never saw Shahid Aftab aforesaid P.W. at the hospital which is sufficient to rule out the presence of Shahid Aftab P . W . , as alleged by him.

6. As regards the recovery of blood‑stained knife, .the learned counsel pointed out that Habib Ahmad (P.W. 7), the recovery witness, has explained that he was present near the place of occurrence and that he was made by the police to join the investigation and witness the recovery because he had gone to that Bazar to buy an envelope but he admitted that the post office was closed on that day since it was Friday. He stated further that in fact he did not go to get envelope but had gone to buy some 'iron nails', but that shop was also closed, due to the day being a Friday.

7. According to the petitioner's counsel this falsifies the reason for the recovery witness to be present near the spot and also demonstrates that this witness is capable of telling lies. He then turned to the second eye‑witness Fida Hussain P.W. 4 (brother of the deceased) and took us through his cross‑examination at page 15 of the Printed Book which reflects very badly on his character the antecedents and submitted that he was not a person worth reliance without any reliable and independent corroboration which according to him was not available since the recovery witness had been shown to be false.

8. These contentions appear to have considerable weight. We, therefore, grant leave to consider whether the well‑established principles) of appreciation of evidence have been followed by the Courts below in the present case. M. I .?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted