1993 PCr (PLP)

On. 27-6-1986, Altaf Hussain Shah and Feroze Ali Councillors produced the appellant before the Police Officer, who arrested him. The same day, Mst. Begum Noor was also produced before the investigator by them. On 4-7-1986, the appellant while in police custody got recovered hatchet P.4 from his residential house in the presence of Ali Bahadur Councillor (P.W.6) and Muhammad Zaman (not produced), which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.F. On 13-7-1986, Zafar Ali Patwari (P.W.6) handed over to the Investigating Officer, site plan Exh.PA. and its copies Exhs.PA.,/1 and PA./2. After usual investigation, Muhammad Asghar S.I. submitted the challan in the Court.

5. Dr. Asghar Hameed Oureshi (P.W.10), S.M.O. Civil Hospitai, Chakwal, conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Imdad Hussain and found four incised wounds, one oblique incised wound, three parallel superficial incised wounds, in an area of 6-1/2" x 3/4", on the upper part of neck, a lacerated wound and an abrasion thereon. Death in the opinion of the doctor was due to intra and extra cranial bleeding and injury to the brain caused by injuries Nos.l, 2 and 6 (reproduced below), which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature individually as well as collectively:-- ?? (1)??????? An incised wound, 4-1/2" x 1" x brain deep, oblique over right temporal area and zygomatic area, close and in front of right ear pinna. A part of this pinna was cut. (2)??????? An oblique incised wound, 3-1/8" x 1/2",brain deep on the back of the scalp, 3/4" above and to the right of occiput.''' (6)??????? An incised wound, 4" x 5/8" into brain deep, on top 9f the scalp, 1/2" to the left of midline situated antero posteriorly. The fracture line went into the frontal bone anteriorly. 6.???????? The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegations. He disowned the recovery of hatchet P.4 and made the following statement in answer to question No.2 `Why this case against you and why the witnesses have deposed against you:-- "The present case has been falsely registered against me at the instance of Muhammad Hussain and Khan Bahadur at the behest of Muhammad Khan P.W. All the eye-witnesses are either co-related, related with the deceased and complainant or from the village of the complainant Muhammad Hussain. Muhammad Hussain P.W. had doubted my illicit relations with his wife because about 2/3 months of Muhammad Hussain and in the adjacent fields when he came there field where his wife was working. Muhammad Khan Lambardar has also previous enmity with me. In fact, I was not present in the area of Tehsil and District Chakwal on the day of occurrence at the alleged time of occurrence. Muhammad Hussain P W had also warned me of dire consequences." The appellant declined to make statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. and produced Abdul Rehman Electrician, Shamas Textile Mills, Chiniot, as D.W.1 in his defence. The said witness deposed that according to the attendance register of the Mill, the appellant remained m the Milt on 16-6-1986, the day of occurrence. In cross-examination he admitted that the attendance register always remained with the Head Clerk.

7. The learned trial Judge believing the prosecution evidence vide impugned judgment, convicted the appellant under section 302, P.P.C. and gave him the sentence as indicated above, but acquitted Mst. Begum Noor of the charge of abetment.

8. The learned defence counsel contended that it was an unwitnessed crime, which took place when none was present at the scene of occurrence, the witnesses being the close relations of the deceased are making false statements against the appellant on account of their blood relations; the ocular version is against the medical evidence; the belated F.I.R. was recorded after preliminary investigation; hence no reliance can be placed on this dubious document; the police did not conduct the investigation in this case honestly and impartially, which has greatly prejudiced the case of 4he -defence; the motive, though alleged, has not been proved, by the prosecution; the recovery of blood-stained hatchet P.4 was not proved through independent evidence; the defence evidence has not been properly appreciated, hence the appeal be accepted and conviction and sentence be set aside.

9. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that there is no background of enmity between the parties; hence the eye-witnesses had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant in this case. The learned counsel for the complainant urged that the acquittal of Mst. Begum Noor has resulted into miscarriage of justice, so by accepting the revision petition, the case be remanded for fresh trial in accordance with law.

10. We have critically examined the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case minutely with their assistance. We find no force in the submission of the learned defence counsel that the F.I.R. was lodged after inordinate delay and preliminary investigation. Keeping in view the terrain and topography of the place of occurrence, we find that there is hilly area on all the four sides of the place of occurrence, and the said place was not connected with any metalled road at the time of occurrence. The complainant went on foot to lodge the F.I.R. to the police station, thus there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. Even Muhammad Asghar S.I. (P.W.11), A the investigator stated:--From Kher Pur to Khokhar Bala there was no metalled road in those days and it was three miles or two miles distance'. The recorded at the police station which completely eliminates the preliminary investigation. Mere statement of the complainant, made under some misunderstanding does not prove that F.I.R. was. The contention of the learned defence motive though alleged, yet not proved is also devoid of force, case, does not by itself is sufficient to discard the motive. Motive is a state of mind of the accused, there is ample evidence on the record to show that the interested in Mst. Begum Noor. Mere relationship of the eye the deceased, in the absence of any enmity is not sufficient to any witnesses, corroborates the ocular version, because the occurrence of June, which is normally the hottest month of the Hameed Oureshi P.W.10 deposed Gases emerge about 24 but in hot season they may arise earlier'. The medical to the condition of the dead body is based upon some and also whether he died in the cold season or also what type of injuries he received before his death. It settled principle of safe administration of criminal evidence is discarded on the basis of medical evidence which is merely based on guesswork of the doctor. The minor discrepancies appearing in the evidence of .the eye?witnesses here and there per se are not sufficient to disbelieve the ocular evidence, especially when their presence at the scene of occurrence is proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Furthermore, such like discrepancies are likely to creep in the evidence of truthful witnesses after the lapse of sufficient time. The occurrence took place on the spring, where people used to bring their cattle for watering, the eye-witnesses being the residents of the locality, are the natural and probable witnesses of the occurrence; hence there is no force in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. We have given our anxious consideration to this aspect of the case, what should be the proper sentence in this case. We find no mitigating circumstances in favour of the appellant, so he richly deserved the death sentence, which is the normal penalty prescribed under the law; so while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under section 302, P.P.C., we confirm his death sentence. The sentence of fine, as imposed by the trial Court, is also maintained. We find no force in the revision petition, hence same is dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./M-732/L ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.