1994 P Cr (PLP)

(4) A stitched up wound 4 c.m. left buttock 2 c.m. from the anal verge. (5) A stitched up wound 4 c.m. on the left buttock 3 c.m. from the anal verge. (6) Incised wound 3 c.m. skin deep on the anterior aspect of the forearm 4 c.m. below the left elbow. (7) An incised wound 3 c.m. skin deep on the anterior aspect of arm 5 c.m. above the left elbow. X‑ray of chest was advised and the patient was referred to Emergency Surgical Ward for further management. The nature of the injuries was kept under observation. Injuries Nos.1 to 5 were also kept under observation and injuries No.6 and 7 were opined inflicted by sharp‑edged weapon. The duration of the injuries was stated to be within 24 hours. In cross‑examination the doctor told that the patient was not carrying reference letter of any doctor nor was accompanied by any police official.

6. The post‑mortem examination on the dead body of Abdur Rashid was performed by Dr. Khalid Yazdani A. Sheikh, Senior Medical Officer, D.H.Q., Sheikhupura (P.W.1) on 19‑5‑1988 at 4‑00 p.m. The body was of a young man of about 18 years, naked, mouth and eyes were closed and rigor mortis was present; and there was no ligature mark on the neck. He observed the same injuries which had been noted by Dr. Ghias‑un‑Nabi. The measurement of the injuries was lengthwise. He also found an incision of operation 7 c.m. long stitched on the front of abdomen. Blood vessels of left femoral area were cut leading to consequent haemorrhage, in the abdomen large intestines and bladder were punctured. In the opinion of the doctor the injuries were ante‑mortem and caused by sharp‑edged weapon. The death was due to shock and haemorrhage. Injuries Nos.3, 4 and 5 were sufficient to cause death collectively and injuries Nos.4 and 5 individually in the ordinary course of nature. Probable duration between injuries and death was stated to be about 14 to 16 hours.

7. Amanullah, A.S.I. (P.W.14) after recording the statement (Exh.P.F.) of Abdul Rashid sent it to the police station for the registration of the case and referred the injured to local hospital. From the spot he secured blood‑stained earth vide memo. (Exh.P.M.). Taj Din, the father of the injured/deceased brought shirt, Shalwar, vest and muffler (P.1 to P.4) all blood‑stained belonging to the deceased which he secured vide memo. (Exh.P.B.) He prepared rough site plan (Exh.P.N.). He also got site plans prepared through the draftsman (Exh.P.E. and Exh.P.E./1). In cross‑examination the A.S.I. stated that he had taken into possession the clothes of the injured on the very day of occurrence. He denied the suggestion that Abdur Rashid had not made any statement to him or that it was not recorded at Adda Mananwala. He asserted that none of the accused was present at the spot when he reached there. He also informed that injury statement (Exh.P.Q.) was in his hand and it was addressed to medical officer, Mayo Hospital, Lahore. He claimed that as it was Eid day and the offices were closed, he had not addressed any letter to the local hospital Mananwala. He contradicted his earlier statement in examination‑in‑chief by deposing that the injured was not sent to Mananwala hospital. He however, admitted that according to his "Karwai" on (Exh.P.F.) that the injured was sent to the local hospital but subsequently came to know that the local hospital was closed and addressed the letter (Exh.P.Q.). He claimed that Abdur Rashid was insisting for Mayo Hospital and so he had not referred the injured to D.H.Q. Hospital, Sheikhupura.

8. Muhammad Anwar Inspector (P.W.12) was S.H.O. of the police station. He received information on 19‑5‑1988 that Abdul Rashid the injured, had died in Mayo Hospital whereupon he took up the investigation of the case. He arrested both the appellants on 24‑5‑1988. On 29‑5‑1988 Arshad after making a disclosure led to the house of Muhammad Sharif and got recovered dagger (P.6) and Shahbaz produced his hatchet from his house (P.5). These were taken into possession vide memos. (Exhs.P.D. and P.C.). In cross -examination he admitted that the recovery was effected from the house of Sharif the father of Shahbaz.

9. The appellants in their statements at the close of the trial ascribed their involvement to suspicion and pleaded innocence. They did not make any statement on oath nor produced any evidence in defence.

10. At the trial Dr. Khalid Yazdani A. Sheikh and Dr. Ghias‑un‑Nabi (P.W.1 and P.W.9) provided medical evidence, Jan Muhammad and Abdul Aziz (P.W.11 and P.W.13) the ocular account of the occurrence, the latter also stating about the motive, Muhammad Saif and Muhammad Anwar Inspector (P.W.3 and P.W.12) to state about the recovery of dagger and hatchet at the instance of the appellants while Muhammad Anwar, Inspector and Amanullah, A.S.I. deposed about the investigation done by them.

11. Abdul Aziz (P.W.13) is the brother of Abdul Rashid deceased and resides in Khambianwala. Jan Muhammad (P.W.11) is also resident of the same village. Abdul Aziz stated that he and his brother Abdul Rashid had come to bus stand Mananwala to purchase meat, it was Eid day, he was standing on the roadside, the deceased crossed the road to purchase the cigarettes. There was hue and cry and he ran to the spot. Shahbaz accused was having hatchet and Arshad accused a dagger. Both the accused injured the deceased. The Chhuri blows hit on the hip and the hatchet blows on the left arm. He also stated that Shahbaz appellant was apprehended by police at the spot while Arshad was able to run away. He also told that his brother was taken to Mananwala hospital and his statement was recorded by police in his presence which was read over and thumb‑marked by him (the deceased). Thereafter, his brother was shifted to Mayo Hospital, Lahore. He died the following night at 1‑00 a.m. He also stated that his brother Rashid and Arshad appellant used to work for labour together, had quarrelled and the deceased had given physical beating to Arshad, however the matter was patched up between the two.

12. As to the motive part of the version given by him, he was not cross‑examined at all. He had not stated to the police that Shahbaz was apprehended at the spot and Arshad had run away. He was confronted and contradicted in cross‑examination on this aspect. While in cross‑examination he stated that his village consisted of 300/400 houses and there was no shop in the village. According to him many persons were present on the road but there was no rush. His brother had just reached the Khokha and had not purchased the cigarettes when the occurrence took place. He again told that when he and others reached the spot Arshad had run away but again contradicted, him by saying that he was still present. He further deposed that the doctor was present in the hospital but he advised them to shift the injured immediately to Mayo Hospital, Lahore. The advice was in writing. He claimed to have taken his brother to Lahore alongwith the police constable and his father Taj Din. According to him the statement of his brother was recorded in Mananwala hospital after about one hour when the police reached there. Before recording the statement of Abdul Rashid he had talked with him and Arshad told him that it were the accused who had injured him. According to him his village was 1‑1/2 kilometres away from the place of occurrence and they had come to Mananwala by bicycle. He also told that the police had recovered hatchet from Shahbaz at the spot. He also stated that the doctor was present when the statement of his brother was recorded.

13. Jan Muhammad (P.W.11) fully corroborated Abdul Aziz to the effect that Arshad and Shahbaz respectively armed with dagger and hatchet had injured the deceased at the bus stand and the hue and cry attracted P.Ws. and others. The deceased fell on the ground, police reached the spot, Arshad was able to run away while Shahbaz was apprehended by the police. The statement of the deceased was also recorded by the police and got thumb‑marked.

14. In cross‑examination the witness stated that Khambianwala was a village of about 2,000 souls with shops having necessities of life but there was no meat shop. All the shops at Mananwala bus stand were open at the time of occurrence. He also stated that Rashid deceased was from his Biradari and distantly related to him. The police reached the spot whereafter the injured was taken to Mananwala Dispensary. There was no apprehension of his death. The doctor verbally advised them to take him to Mayo Hospital, Lahore, He goes on to tell that their village was 7 squares away from the place of occurrence. He claimed to have stated to the police that Arshad accused was arrested at the spot. It is noted in the record "confronted with Exh.D.A. so recorded". The record seems to have been incorrectly prepared by the learned trial Court as it is not so recorded in Exh.DA. He further claimed that he had not stated before the police that the accused had run away from the spot. This was his version in Exh.DA, and was confronted and contradicted.

15. From the statement of Dr. Ghias‑un‑Nabi of Mayo Hospital, Lahore, it is apparent that some wounds of the deceased were stitched and medical treatment had been provided to the injured before he reached Emergency Mayo Hospital, Lahore. The two eye‑witnesses have also stated that the injured was taken to local hospital/dispensary Mananwala from bus stand and from there he was advised to be taken to Mayo Hospital, Lahore. Amanullah, A.S.I. in examination‑in‑chief stated that the injured was sent to the local hospital and then contradicted him in cross‑examination by denying this fact' and asserting that he was sent to Mayo Hospital vide his written letter (Exh.P.Q.). On looking at injury statement (Exh.P.Q.) it is sufficient to conclude that the A.S.I. was not coming out with the whole truth. It is addressed to "Medical Officer Sahib" and words "Mayo Hospital, Lahore" seem to have been added in a different ink and it seemed clear to us later. The statement of the eye‑witnesses are correct and his own (A.S.I s ) statement that the injured from bus stand Mananwala was sent to the local hospital/dispensary Mananwala and Exh.P.Q. was also addressed to the Medical Officer 'and from there he was sent to Mayo Hospital. We entertained doubt and so sent for the medico‑legal registers of Mananwala Hospital and D.H.Q. Hospital, Sheikhupura for 18‑5‑1988 (the day of occurrence) which were produced and examined in Court. The injured was not entered in the registers of the two hospitals though in the register of Mananwala hospital‑one "Liaqat" was mentioned as having been examined, his wounds stitched and glucose drip provided. After having appreciated the statements of the eye‑witnesses, Amanullah, A.S.I. and Dr. Ghias‑un‑Nabi, we are convinced and conclude that the injured from bus stand Mananwala was sent by the A.S.I. to the local hospital/dispensary where it seems that medical aid was provided to him with the wound stitched definitely and being the day of Eid perhaps the doctor himself was not available and some dispenser/unqualified employee attended him, there was no apprehension of immediate death so the matter was casually taken but the injuries being in the buttock near the anus leading to the damage to femoral region and so haemorrhage at large scale, the condition of the injured became serious whereupon he was taken to Mayo Hospital. The A.S.I. having not conducted himself properly in the whole matter and some unauthorised person having provided medical assistance, it was thought safe to get the injured admitted in Emergency Ward, Mayo Hospital, Lahore through his father Taj Din, suppressing the medical treatment at Mananwala and even keeping the constable/police away (by not mentioning in any paper). We believe the complainant that a constable was present when the injured was taken to Mayo Hospital, Lahore.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased had already been medically attended when he reached Mayo Hospital, Lahore, how and in what manner medical aid was provided in the first instance was not made clear, as the cause of death was not ascertainable, the eye‑witnesses were not present at the spot, F.I.R. was prepared later on, the first medical attendant/doctor was not examined nor opinion obtained that the deceased at the relevant time was fit to make statement, so the F.I.R. lodged by the deceased himself could not be treated as dying declaration. It was also asserted that both the eye‑witnesses were close relatives of the deceased and so could not be believed. The motive was inadequate and insufficient. Learned counsel for Shahbaz appellant further contended that the eye‑witness account was contradicted by Amanullah, A.S.I. that Shahbaz was apprehended at the spot, if his apprehension at the spot was admitted, then the recovery of the weapon at his instance on 29‑5‑1988 was to be discarded altogether, only one type of weapon seems to have been used to cause the injuries to the deceased, only one injury was ascribed to Shahbaz which was simple and so the case against him at the most would have been one under section 324, P.P.C. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant and A.A.‑G. who had also attended on Court's call argued that the day of occurrence was Eid, the eye‑witnesses had come to Adda Mananwala to purchase meat, the deceased was accompanying his brother Abdul Aziz, there must have been a large number of people at the place of occurrence, the police station being nearby and the deceased being a young man would have been in a fit state to make statement soon after the occurrence, so the statement made by him in dying declaration which corroborated the eye‑witness account, eye‑witnesses being independent, there is no reason not to rely upon them. They also contended that firstly the deceased was medically examined at Mananwala Dispensary and then referred to Mayo Hospital, Lahore. After hearing the learned counsel and having gone through the record we are not impressed by the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. Abdul Aziz (P.W.13) stated motive part of the story and he was not cross‑examined at all on his version in this regard. The motive is therefore more than proved.

17. Abdul Aziz and Jan Muhammad P.Ws. have reiterated the version given in the F.I.R. They are completely independent and disinterested against the appellants and we find no reasons not to rely upon them. As concluded above the occurrence took place in broad daylight at the bus stand. There would have been many people around and also the police, police station being nearby and it being the Eid day. The deceased must have been in a very fit state of mind and body to make statement about the whole of the occurrence. E It is clear from the statement of the doctor that the death was due to the injuries arid even otherwise injuries on the buttock and on the anal region were such that these resulted in damage to the femoral area, there must have been extensive haemorrhage leading to the death. The seat of the injuries with punctured large intestines and bladder indicate that the attack was in a very cruel manner. The statement which formed the basis of the F.I.R. was made soon after the occurrence, so it is a very strong piece of evidence against the appellants. The injuries on the person of the deceased appear to us by two different types of weapons. If Shahbaz had caused only simple injury that would not make any difference as to his participation in the attack upon the deceased. The contentions raised are, therefore, rejected.

18. The upshot is that both the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. The death sentence is confirmed. Reference answered accordingly. The whole of the fine, if realized shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation. N.H.Q./M‑1011/L Appeals dismissed.