1969 P Cr (PLP)

Criminal trial‑Prosecution not bound to examine witness it considers not likely to give true evidence. Adel Muhammad El Dabbah v. A. G. Palestine A I R 1945 PC 42 ref. Abdul Halim, Advocate Federal Court instructed by Wali Muhammad, Attorney for Appellant. A. R. Changez, Advocate‑General of the Punjab (S. A. Mahmud, Advocate Federal Court with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for Respondent. Date of hearing : 22nd March 1954. AKRAM, J.‑This appeal by our leave has been preferred by one Behawal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, affirming the conviction and the sentence of transport ation for life passed on the appellant by the Sessions Judge of Gujranwala, under section 302, Penal Code for having killed Mst. Fatima, sister of the appellant's wife Mst. Sardaran, by shooting at her with a gun on 27‑7‑

50. The case for the prosecution was that Mst. Fatima had come to the appellant's house on a visit that the appellant wanted her to obtain a divorce from her husband Noor Muhammad and get married to appellant's brother Shera ; that as she did not agree to the proposal and insisted on going back to her own house, the appellant shot her with a gun as a result of which she expired while being taken to the hospital ; that P. W. 9 Bhag, who was passing by was attracted to the house on hearing a gunshot ; that he saw Mst. Fatima lying injured and the appellant standing in front of her, gun in hand ; that Ghulam Rasul P. W. 10 and Mehr Din P. W. 11 came soon afterwards and on their questioning the appellant he told those present there that he had shot Mst. Fatima because she persisted in going back to her house ; that Mst. Fatima also made a statement to the same effect ; that appellant's wife Mst. Sardaran and her aunt Mst. Sattan were at the time attending to the injury of Mst. Fatima. Counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution case was not satisfactorily established as the eye‑witnesses Mst. Sardaran and Mst. Sattan were not examined in the case by the prosecution ; that Lakhan and Shera were prevented by the police from appearing as witnesses to the prejudice of the defence. But the prosecution is ‑not bound to call a witness who, it considers, is not likely to give true evidence (See Adel Muhammad El Dabbah v. A. G. Palestine (A I R 1945 P C 42) as to Lakhan and Shera being prevented from giving evidence for the defence, nothing was said either at the trial or at the time of the hearing of the appeal in the High Court. In this connection the relation ship between the appellant and the said persons is not without significance. Mst. Sardaran is the appellant's wife, Mst. Sattan her aunt, Lakhan the father of the appellant and Shera the brother of the appellant. Next, it was said the conduct of the appellant in being present throughout at the place of occurrence and in giving drinking water to Mst. Fatima pointed to his innocence. It is difficult to see what the occasion then for making a confession. It is true that one has to be very careful and cautious in relying upon extra-judicial confession, but here we have the corroborative statement of Mst. Fatima herself and not material circumstance of any kind which could cast a doubt on the truth of the statements of P. W. 9, 10 and

11. There is no reason for us to differ from the conclusions arrived at by the Court below. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.