2003 PLP 747 (SCMR)

The same doctor conducted post‑mortem on the dead body of Saghir and found following injuries on his person:‑‑‑ "(1) Contused wound 3‑1/2 c.m. x 1‑1/2 c.m. x bone deep on left (2) Stab wound 3‑1/2 c.m. x 1‑1/2 c.m. on right side of xiphoid going deep in abdominal cavity. During dissection it was found that the injury had penetrated into abdominal cavity and had cut medial lobe of liver with wound of 3 c.m. x 8 c.m. It also cut 10th and 11th ribs. (3) Stab wound 3‑1/2 c.m. into 2 c.m. on left mid‑line of chest 9 c.m. postero lateral to left nipple, on dissection it was found that it had gone 9 c.m. deep into the muscles of the chest. (4) Incised wound 3‑1/2 x 1‑1/2 c. m. chest cavity deep on the, right side to its lateral part 10 c.m. postero interior to right nipple. It has passed through internal coastal space of 8th and 9th rib injuring right lower lobe of the lung and then passed into liver cutting its right lobe at its end up to 4 c.m. (5) Incised wound 4 x 1‑1/2 c.m. on the right flan in the abdomen going backward and done ward through muscles up to 6 c.m. with wound of exit 2‑1/2 x 1‑1/2 c.m. on the back of right flan. (6) Incised wound 4 x 2 c.m. abdominal cavity deep 2 c.m. right to apendiacular area 18 inches small intestine was bulging out of it. On dissection it was found it had cut abdominal wall and penetrated into abdominal cavity." Dr. Khizar Mahmood Qazi, medically examined Zulfiqar and Bashir injured P.Ws on the day of occurrence and traced following injuries on their persons: "(1) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 & c.m. not probed on left chest back 5 c.m. from id‑line on left side corresponding cut on Bunyan and shirt was present. (2) Incised wound 3 c. m. x 1‑1/2 c. m. at back on right side 3 c. m. from mid‑line (not probed) (corresponding cut on Bunyan and shirt was present). A lacerated wound 3 c.m. x 1‑1/2 c.m. into bone deep with swelling on the back of the head in the area of 4 x 4 c.m. It was 4‑1/2 c.m. from the right ear." Dr. Muhammad Afzal Chaudhry conducted post‑mortem on the dead body of Shabbir and traced following injuries on his person: "(1) A stitch operation wound 21 c.m. (left para median). (2) Stitched 3 c.m. wound on left lower chest in mid clavical line. (3) Stitched 1 c.m. wound on left upper abdomen 10 c.m. below injury No. 1. (4) 2 x 1-1/2 c.m. wound present 12 c.m. left side of umblicous. (5) 2 x c.m. wound present two c.m. below and parallel of injury No.4, line. (6) 2 x 3 c.m. chest tube bone in 8 internal costal space in mid axillary line. (7) Healed wound." The prosecution in addition to the police officials and the formal witnesses who remained associated with investigation, examined Muhammad Bashir and Zulfiqar as eye‑witnesses of the occurrence. Dr. Khizar (P.W.‑7), Dr. Muhammad Afzal (P.W.‑8) and Dr. Muhammad Saeed, (P.W.‑12) who medically examined the witnesses and conducted post‑mortem examination on the dead bodies of deceased and Muhammad Khan, Inspector (P.W.‑9), who conducted investigation of the case and submitted challan. The accused in their statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. while denying the charge pleaded that the deceased and injured witnesses sustained injuries at the hands of inhabitants of the area in an open fight taken place in the Mohalla and they were falsely involved in the case due to enmity with Manzoor Hussain Lilla, an ex‑Police Officer. Learned counsel for petitioners has contended that the eye witnesses namely Bashir (P.W.‑5) and Zulfiqar (P.W.‑6) were real father and brother of Saghir and Shabbir deceased and therefore, they being interested witnesses could not be relied upon without independent corroboration. It was next contended by the learned counsel that the fateful occurrence took place at 6 p.m. on 21‑5‑1995 when it was complete dark therefore, the assailants were not identifiable and further it was not possible for the witnesses to give minute detail of injuries. The learned counsel concluded that since motive was shrouded in mystery and moreover, it was difficult to fix the individual responsibility of each accused, therefore, it would be sufficient mitigating circumstance for lesser penalty. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and perused the record with their assistance. The occurrence was the result of a quarrel taken place between Shabbir deceased and Khurshid petitioner in connection with the payment of price of tape recorder and except the quarrel in question, there was no enmity between them therefore, it is not acceptable that the petitioners would be substituted for unknown culprits for such a petty dispute. The parties being resident of same Mohallah were known to each other and petitioners while armed with deadly weapons attacked at the deceased and the witnesses when they were present in the courtyard of their house at 6 p.m., therefore, there was no possibility of misidentification as the complainant and his companions would not be sitting in the courtyard in dark. The report of the occurrence was lodged within one hour of .the occurrence at the police station urban area, Sargodha, which was situated at a distance of 1‑1/2 kilometres from the place of occurrence, therefore, there would be no question of deliberation and consultation. Close relationship of the injured witnesses namely, Muhammad Bashir and Zulfiqar with the deceased would not be a ground to discard their testimony. They were natural witnesses of the occurrence and had no motive either to make false deposition against the petitioners or substitute them for the real culprits. It is in the medical evidence that the deceased and eye‑witnesses were caused injuries with sharp‑edged weapon and the blood stained weapons of offence recovered at the instance of the petitioners were found to have been stained with human blood by the expert in the Forensic Science Laboratory which would provide sufficient corroboration to the ocular account. The motive part of prosecution story was proved by Muhammad Bashir (P.W.5) who claimed to have witnessed the quarrel between Khurshid deceased and his son Shabbir 2/3 days prior to the occurrence and thus the motive would also be supportive evidence in proof of the guilty of petitioners. We having gone through the evidence of the injured anti natural witnesses, have found them truthful, confidence‑inspiring and trustworthy. The evidence of eye‑witnesses was not suffering from any material defect or contained any describable contradiction and discrepancy to create a slight doubt regarding the guilt of the petitioners. We find that motive in the present case was not shrouded in mystery as contended by the learned counsel and in any case, the weakness ands insufficiency of motive or absence of motive in such‑like cases, cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance for lesser penalty. For the foregoing reasons, we find that appraisal of evidence made by the High Court was not in conflict to the principles laid down by this Court and there was no flaw in the finding regarding guilt of the petitioners for interference of this Court. We therefore while maintaining the conviction and sentences awarded to the petitioners, dismiss this petition. Leave is refused. N.H.Q./S‑214/S Leave refused.