1993 P Cr (PLP)

(3)??????? Incised wound 2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x 2 c.m. deep on the left ribs at a distance of four c.m. from injury No.2. (4)??????? Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x I c.m. deep near the backside of right shoulder. (5)??????? Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 2 c.m. deep in the middle of vertebral column. Injuries Nos. 1 to 5 were kept under observation and advised X-ray. The nature of injuries was fresh and all the injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapon. On the same day at 7-15 p.m., he also examined Muhammad Sher and observed as under:-- (1)??????? Pain right side of neck. (2)??????? Abrasion mark on right side of wrist-joint. (3)??????? Pain back side of chest. (4)??????? Abrasion mark on right side of right knee-joint of leg. (5)??????? Abrasion mark on left side of left knee joint of leg. All the injuries were simple caused with blunt weapon. On the same day at 7-30 p.m., he medically examined Zulfiqar Haider son of Ahmed Sher and found the following injuries:- (1)??????? Pain right side of head. (2)??????? Pain back side of right shoulder. (3)??????? Pain back side of left chest. (4)??????? Pain on right buttock. All the injuries were simple, which were fresh and caused with blunt weapon.

5. Prosecution in support of its case had produced 12 witnesses in all. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the doctors who had conducted the post-mortem examination and examined the injured, respectively, Muhammad Salim, P.W.3 had prepared site plan Exhs.P.E. and P.E./1 on the directions of the police. P.W.4 Imtiaz Ahmad, Constable had escorted the dead body to the hospital. Hajis Ahmad, P.W.6 had witnessed the recoveries of Chhuris effected at the instance of the appellants. The ocular account was furnished by Muhammad Sher, Muhammad Hussain and Zulfiqar Haider, P.Ws.7, 8 and 9, respectively. Manzoor Ahmad, Constable, P.W.10, had delivered the sealed parcels of Chhuris in the office of Chemical Examiner, Lahore. Taji Muhammad, S.I./S.H.O., P.W.11 had conducted the investigation of the case. Muhammad Naeem, M.H.C., P.W.12 had kept the sealed parcels in the Malkhana and so long they remained there, nobody tampered with them. At the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined without oath, wherein they refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. Except for Zahoor Hussain, others stated that they were not even present, at the spot. Zahoor Hussain, however, stated that on the day of occurrence he grappled with the deceased who picked up a Danda, therefore, in order to save himself he picked up a Chhuri and gave blows. The commotion attracted others to the spot as well and they were also injured. Nobody could know who had caused injuries because there was load-shedding at that time.

6. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the case against the appellants was not proved at all. Submitted that the ocular account was in conflict with the medical evidence, therefore, no reliance on it can be placed. Argued that the witnesses were close relations of the deceased and were inimical towards the appellant, therefore, they should not be relied upon without independent corroboration which was not available in the instant case. Further pointed out that the recoveries of Chhuris at the instance of the appellants have already been disbelieved by the trial Court. Submitted that even if prosecution story was accepted, it was a sudden fight and, therefore, section 149, P.P.C. could not be applicable. Lastly it was argued that the eye?witnesses could not be relied upon because they were chance witnesses as they did not belong to the locality. The contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State. According to him, the case was proved beyond doubt. It was asserted that there was no conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence. Further submitted that the presence of the eye-witnesses could not be doubted because all of them were injured and they had fresh injuries on their person.

7. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence with his assistance. The prosecution story mainly rests on the statements of Muhammad Sher, Muhammad Hussain and Zulfiqar; P.Ws.7, 8 and 9, respectively, who are eye-witnesses of the occurrence. It is not disputed that the parties are very closely related inter se. The deceased and the appellants were first cousins, being sons of two brothers. They were also related through marriages, as sister of the deceased was married to one of the appellants, and sister of the appellants was married to the deceased. It has come in evidence that apart from matrimonial dispute, the parties had cordial relations and there was no background of any enmity of any nature. It is also not disputed that the houses of the deceased and of the appellants were in the same vicinity. Both the parties are also unanimous on the point that Mst. Sakina, sister of the appellants, was wife of Muhammad Siddique, deceased, who on the day of occurrence was not living with her husband because of some dispute. The eye?witnesses gave a detailed account of the occurrence and were subjected to lengthy cross-examination. They admitted their relationship but at the same time asserted that there was no background of enmity between the parties. Occurrence had taken place inside the house of Muhammad Sher, P.W.7, and, in such circumstances, he was most natural witness. His presence is further proved by the fact that he was injured. I am not impressed with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the witnesses are inimical. Daughter of the first informant is wife of one of the appellants and, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that he is inimical towards the appellant side. The eye-witnesses were injured. They were promptly examined by a doctor. This is sufficient corroboration to their statements. In these circumstances, I feel, complete reliance on the statements of the eye-witnesses can be placed. The contention of the learned counsel that application of section 149, P.P.C. is highly doubtful is also without force. It is in evidence that the appellants came to the house of the deceased armed with Chhuris and raised Lalkaras. In these circumstances, there cannot be any doubt that section 149, P.P.C. is applicable. Defence version also cannot be relied upon because, according to doctor, Muhammad Sher and Zulfiqar, P.Ws. had received injuries with blunt weapon whereas others had received injuries with sharp-edged weapon. This would mean that two different weapons were used. For what has been discussed above, I find the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond doubt against the appellants. Therefore, the appeal fails, which is accordingly, dismissed. N.H.Q./M-670/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.