1999 PLP 400 (MLD)

3. All the four accused were charged under sections 302, 324 and 34 P.P.C. who pleaded not guilty thereto and claimed to be tried.

4. At the trial Dr. Habib Ullah P.W.1, Dr. Manzoor Ahmad .P.W.3 and Dr. Niaz Ali Mohsin P.W.15 stated about the injury on the person of Ramzan son of Gama (P.W.11) who had also obtained his X-Ray Skiagram. The injury on his person was declared ' Hashimah' and 'Jurh Jaifah'. Dr. Faqir Zaigham Ali P.W.2 Medical Officer D.H.Q. Hospital, Jhang conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mahram son of Sultan. He found the 'following; injuries on the person of the deceased:- External Iniuries: (1) A fire-arm entrance wound 0.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. with blackening of margin on left side of chest, middle part 5 c.m. laternal to mid line am' 5 c.m. medial to left nipple. (2)??????? Multiple fire-arm exit wounds five in number in an area of 4 c.m. x 4 c.m. on the back of right chest, upper part just medial to right scapula 4 c.m. from the mid line. Metallic particle was recovered from one of the exit wounds.

5. Sultan complainant P.W.10, Muhammad Ramzan injured P.W.1. and Muhammad Ramzan P.W.12 (son of Salehoon) figured in the witness box to depose about the ocular account. P.W.11 and P.W.11 also stated about the alleged motive regarding the abduction of Mst. Saddan, sister of Muhammad Ramzan convict, by Mahram deceased. Learned SSP adduced in evidence report of the Chemical Examiner regarding blood-stained earth as Exh.PM, report of the Serologist as Exh.PN, attested copy of the plaint of the suit for restitution conjugal rights titled as Mahram Ali v. Mst. Saddan as Exh. PO and attested copy of the plaint of the suit for jactitation of marriage titled as Mst. Saddan v. Mahram Ali as Exh.PP.

6. When examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Raja, Taj and Muhammad Bakhsh accused deposed about their non-participation in the occurrence and took up the stand that they had been falsely involved. Muhammad Ramzan convict when examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also stated about his non-participation in the occurrence and expressed his defence as under:- "The P.Ws. are related inter se. The deceased, P.W. Muhammad Ramzan and other P.W. Muhammad Ramzan were residents of Basti Qureshian Jhang which is at a distance of 30/35 miles from the place of occurrence. On the fateful night Mahram deceased and injured P.W. Ramzan alongwith some other persons attempted to abduct Mst. Saddan in order to thwart her from pursuing her suit for jactitation of marriage and took her to some distance. They were chased by the residents of the village and encircled. The darkness was prevailing due to load shedding. The companions of deceased Mahram started firing to save themselves in result of which Mahram lost his life and Ramzan sustained injury. At that time I was in my village Chak No.493/JB, and have been implicated in this case falsely being the real brother of Mst. Saddan."

7. Altaf Hussain Sub-Station Officer/Incharge Grid Station Bhumb Police Station Qadirpur D.W.1 stated that on 23-9-1992 there was load-shedding from 7.00 p.m. to 8.22 p.m. Muhammad Rafi Naib Moharrir Police Station Qadirpur D.W.2 stated about some entries in the daily diary. All the accused did not appear under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.

8. After hearing the parties the trial Court acquitted Raja, Taj and Muhammad Bakhsh accused by the grant of benefit of doubt to them. 9, With regard to Muhammad Ramzan convict the factum of recovery of 30-bore pistol P6 taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PH was not given the weight and the said ingredient of the prosecution evidence was excluded from consideration. However, the motive, the ocular evidence and the medical evidence were given the weight. Consequently Muhammad Ramzan was convicted as narrated above who has preferred this appeal which has been resisted by the State.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned State Counsel and gone through the record before me. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the eye-witnesses are related inter se who are the residents of a different place and that their statements have failed to establish the guilt of Muhammad Ramzan convict. He referred to the stand taken by Muhammad Ramzan convict in his statement recorded under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and laid the emphasis that during the load-shedding Mahram Ali took away Mst. Saddan alongwith others when there was firing and at the hand of some person of his own party Mahram as well as Muhammad Ramzan son of Gama were injured out of whom Mahram expired. On the contrary learned counsel for the State argued that the motive and the medical evidence shall prove to be corroborative evidence to the occular account and that the eye?witnesses have established the guilt of Muhammad Ramzan appellant. He added that the place of occurrence is the hotel from where the blood-stained earth was taken into possession which fact has not been contradicted by the defence and the version of Muhammad Ramzan convict expounded during the course of his statement recorded under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stands falsified thereof. In my view the appellant has no case for the acceptance of this appeal. The production of the copy Exh.PO of the plaint of the suit for restitution of conjugal rights titled as Mahram Ali v. Mst. Saddan and the copy Exh.PP of the plaint of the suit titled as Mst. Saddan v. Mahram Ali instituted by her for jactitation of marriage has made out that Mahram Ali deceased claimed Mst. Saddan as his wife. This fact has been denied by the defence, but the stand of Muhammad Ramzan convict when examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and reproduced above is enough to make out that the alleged motive is correct. The same also stands established by the statements of Sultan complainant P.W.10 (father of Mahram deceased) and injured P.W. Muhammad Ramzan son of Gama (Bhanja of the complainant). In this view of the matter the mind/brain of Muhammad Ramzan convict was brewing and the motive has rightly been believed by the trial Court. The ocular evidence comprises the statements of Sultan complainant P.W.10, Muhammad Ramzan injured P.W.11 and Muhammad Ramzan P.W.12 son of Salehoon. The place of occurrence is the hotel. No doubt the persons present there have been given up having been won over but the statements of the aforesaid Three P.w, have rightly been believed by the trial Court which have established the guilt Muhammad Ramzan convict. The fact of load-shedding brought on record by the defence is not fatal to the prosecution case keeping in view the place occurrence i.e. hotel and the fact that Muhammad Ramzan P.W.1 was also injured during the occurrence whose presence at the spot cannot be questioned in any manner and on any basis. Sultan P.W.10 is the father while Muhammad Ramzan P.W.11 injured witness is the counsel of the deceased Muhammad Ramzan P.W.12 is also a natural witness. All of them have stood the test of cross-examination. Mere putting the suggestions to them of their being false witnesses would not be enough to make me disbelieve them. It is pertinent to mention that about the defence of Muhammad Ramzan convict reproduced above his sister Mst. Saddan, who at present is in the house of Muhammad Bakhsh (acquitted accused) as his wife and taking the side of her brother (i.e. the appellant), could be produced to bolster up and prove the defence. She, however, has not been produced in defence. Thus, her non-production has made me to draw an adverse presumption against the appellant and has arisen a suspicion in my mind about bona fides of the version of the appellant regarding, the manner of occurrence. The medical evidence is in consonance with the statements of the eye-witnesses. I, therefore, hold that the aforesaid ingredients of the prosecution evidence stand established and have rightly been believed by the Trial Court.

11. The material produced by the prosecution has established the guilt of Muhammad Ramzan convict. I, therefore, see no force in this appeal and dismiss the same. N.H.Q./M-431/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.