1999 P Cr (PLP)

Kh. Muhammad Iqbal Butt for Appellant (on State expenses) Ch. Nizam-ud-Din Arif for the State. Date of hearing: 5th April, 1999 This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.21/J of 1998 filed by Liaqat Ali, who was convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala on 6-10-1997 for the murder of Amjad Hussain on the following charges. He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under section 302-B, P.P.C. He was also sentenced under section 201, P.P.C. to undergo two years' S.I. with a fine of Rs.5,000, in default six months' S.I. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also granted to the appellant. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. This is a jail appeal. I appoint Kh. Muhammad Liaqat Butt; Advocate to defend the appellant at State expense.

3. The complaint Exh.P.B. was, lodged by Muhammad Iqbal, maternal uncle of deceased Amjad Hussain examined as P.W.3, on 1-10-1993 at 12-00 noon about a occurrence which took place 4/5 days prior to the registration of F. I. R. and the formal F. I. R. Exh.P.B./1 was recorded on the same day.

4. According to the prosecution story Liaquat Ali had allegedly abducted one Amjad Hussain and subsequently, murdered him whereas Nazir Ahmad and one Asghar Ali (subsequently discharged) had assisted him in burying the dead body. F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1 had been drawn on the strength of written report Exh.P.B. filed by complainant Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.3) in the police station for registration of the case. Muhammad Iqbal complainant P.W.3 had submitted in the application made to the S.H.O., Police Station, Cantt. Gujranwala on 1-10-1993 that he was a resident of Kohar, Police Station Sarai Alamgir and was a wholesale cloth merchant in Ram Din Bazar Jehlum. His maternal-nephew Amjad Hussain (deceased) worked with him as the salesman and as a driver. Said Amjad Hussain had contracted a second marriage with Bushra Begum daughter of Altaf Hussain of Kohar secretly. The Nikah of Amjad Hussain and Bushra Begum had been solemnized in the house of Liaqat Ali (appellant) resident of Rasool Nagar presently living in Labour Gulshan Colony, Rahwali. Liaqat Ali himself wished to marry Bushra Begum. 4/5 days ago, the complainant had come to Gujranwala alongwith Amjad Hussain, Farzand Ali (P.W.4), Abdul Majid P.W. (given up) to purchase cloth. Appellant Liaqat Ali came there and said to Amjad Hussain that the latter's documents of Nikah were lying in his house at Labour Gulshan Colony and he should come with him and collect them. Amjad Hussain went with him. The complainant and the P.Ws. waited for Amjad Hussain for a quite some time but he did not come back. They thought that Amjad Hussain had presumably gone home alone. They after purchasing the cloth reached Kohar in the evening and learnt that Amjad Hussain had not reported back. They felt anxiety. Next day they came to the house of Liaqat Ali in Labour Gulshan Colony and found the house locked. They inquired from the permanent residence of Liaqat Ali in Rasool Nagar but came to know that Liaqat Ali had not gone there. Liaqat Ali had abducted Amjad Hussain with the intention to murder. The complainant prayed that Liaqat Ali be arrested and Amjad Hussain be recovered.

5. The appellant was arrested in this case on 3-10-1993. He led to the recovery of dead body of the deceased from the quarter of his house which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.E. He also led to the recovery of cot P.4, electric wire P.5, National Identity Card of the deceased P.6; slippers of the deceased P.7/1-2, Kassi P.8 on 3-10-1993, which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.F.

6. Prosecution in order to prove its case produced 10 witnesses in all. Thereafter, the statements of the appellant and his co-accused Nazir Ahmad were recorded. Nazir Ahmad co-accused of the appellant was acquitted by the learned trial Court and the appellant Liaqat Ali was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court as mentioned above: Learned counsel for the appellant has read before me, the prosecution evidence., statement of the appellant recorded under section 342, Cr:P.C. and makes the following submissions. He submits that there is no direct evidence, that only evidence against the appellant is of last seen, extra-judicial confession, which was allegedly made by the appellant while he was in custody of the police, that the recovery of different articles like cot, electric wire etc. has been planted on the appellant. He further submits that in fact it was the complainant Muhammad Iqbal, who had killed Amjad Hussain deceased in this case and had made the present appellant as scapegoat. He also submits that motive in the present occurrence is also not believable. He submits that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant be set aside in the circumstances of the case.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that deceased was taken by the appellant in the presence of Muhammad Iqbal P.W.3, Farzand Ali, P.W.4 and one Abdul Majid, who was not produced. He also submits that appellant made extra judicial confession before Muhammad Riaz and Muhammad Afzaal P.W.7 and P.W.8 respectively. He also submits that appellant got recovered the dead body of the deceased from his quarter. He also submits that appellant also got recovered cot, electric wire; National Identity Card of the deceased, slippers of the deceased and a Kassi. He submits that prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence recorded by the learned trial Court. In the instant case, although, the witnesses produced by the prosecution are close relations of the deceased but they have got no enmity whatsoever with the appellant. It was in the presence of Muhammad Iqbal P.W.4, Farzand Ali P.W.4 and Abdul Majid P.W. (given up), that appellant took away Amjad Hussain with him on the pretext to hand him over Nikahnama of Amjad Hussain with Bushra Begum, then there is evidence of extra-judicial confession before Muhammad Riaz and Muhammad Afzal P,W.7 and P.W.8 made by the appellant. As far as, this part of evidence is concerned, I ruled out the same from consideration because of the fact, that the same alleged extra-judicial confession was made by the appellant when he was already arrested by the police. As the appellant was in custody of the police and the extra judicial confession was made in the police station, so that is not admissible in evidence. Now I come to the other evidence of recovery of dead body of the deceased Amjad Hussain which the appellant got recovered on his pointation from Quarter No. 17/B, Gulshan Colony, Gujranwala, no explanation whatsoever has been put forwarded by the appellant regarding this recovery of the dead body of the deceased Amjad Hussain. Appellant also got recovered electric wire, National Identity Card of the deceased, a pair of slipper,, of the deceased, one Kassi. Moreover, according to the post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. Abid Zia, P.W.6, deceased's death was due to electric shock. Even according to the report of Chemical Examiner which has been mentioned by the doctor in his statement who has conducted the post mortem examination, that tranquilizer has been detected from the viscera of the deceased. No enmity whatsoever has been proved or brought on record by the appellant during the trial against the present P.Ws., mere relations of P.Ws. with the deceased is no criteria to discard their evidence.

9. In the above circumstances of the case, I am of the view that prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. Conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court is upheld and the present appeal is hereby dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./L-38/L Appeal dismissed