1995 PLP 1333 (SCMR)

(b) (i) Muhammad Bux, ) (ii) Lai and ) imprisonment for life and fine. (iii) Nasir ) (ii) Under section 307/34 ‑‑ R.I..10 years and fine. (iii) Under section 452: ‑‑ R.I. for 1 year and fine. On their appeal and reference from trail Court, vide judgment dated 18‑10‑1992, the Lahore High Court, Lahore, did not touch sentences of Muhammad Bux, Lai and Nasir under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code but declined to confirm death sentence of Liaqat and altered it to imprisonment for life and fine. Their sentences under section 307/34, P.P.C were reduced from R.I. for, ten years to R.I. for 3 years and fine. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. with this modification in their sentences only, the appeal was dismissed and death sentence of Liaqat was not confirmed. Petitioner Nasir Abbas through Superintendent of Jail has approached this Court and sought for grant of leave.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that:‑‑ (i) The petitioner was minor at the time of incident. (ii) The occurrence has not taken at the place as pointed out by the prosecution. (iii) There is delay in lodging of the F.I.R. for deliberations and consultation the F.1.R. was lodged with delay. (iv) Motive if any was against Liaqat but not against the petitioner. (v) During investigation the petitioner was found innocent by police.

5. We have gone through the F.I.R., evidence of witnesses recorded before the trial Court, the judgments dated 4‑(‑ 1990 and 18‑10‑1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang and the Lahore High Court. Lahore, respectively.

6. It may be observed that the incident has taken place on 11‑5‑1989. In 342, Cr.P.C. statement recorded before the trial Court on 8‑5‑1990, the petitioner has shown his age about 18/19 years. Obviously one year earlier at the time of incident he must have been of 17/18 years age. He had reached at the age of maturity and understanding. As wife of Lal is sister of Muhammad Buy, Lal joined hand with Muhammad Bux and Liaqat to avenge insult of Liaqat. The petitioner being close relative must had participated in the nefarious mission. It is said that "blood is thiker than the water." It is besides not uncommon in rural society the relatives inter se and friends help each other particularly when insults of family are involved.

7. The objection regarding delay in lodging was also raised before the trial Court. It has been dealt with as under:‑‑ "It is correct that the occurrence took place at about noon time in the area of Basti Lohleshah. As Muhammad Nawaz injured P.W. and Shams Din deceased were injured, it might have taken some time by Rab Nawaz (P.W. complainant to recollect himself to make arrangement like hiring to the rikshaw as stated by him for transporting the injured persons to the hospital. The objection of the learned counsel for the accused is that a direct passage from the hospital leads to Chowk Burjiwala, Jhang Saddar, which is called Abid Hussain Chowk, but the complainant did not use this passage. The learned counsel for the accused has forgotten that P.W.11 the complainant, Rab Nawaz, has stated that this passage was blocked because of defect of sewerage line, then they proceeded to the hospital from the side of Railway Station and this P.W. has denied the suggestion that there is no sewerage line as stated by this P.W. who admitted that on the passage which they adopted due to the defect of sewerage line they had covered 2‑1/2 miles more to reach the hospital. From Basti Lohleshah as stated by this P.W. 11, the metalled road leads to Octroi Post No.6 and then up to Mohallah Bagh, Jhang Saddar, and therefrom to Islamia High School, Jhang Saddar, which is near the Police Station, Saddar Jhang and Police Station Kotwali, Jhang is at a shortest distance and Chowk Burjiwala, Jhang, Saddar, is at a distance of one furlong from Police Station Saddar Jahag. This road is nearer than the one they used to reach the hospital and is the same passage in which there was a defect of sewerage line, thus Rabnawaz complainant took Shams Din deceased and Muhammad Nawaz injured P.W. in an injured condition to the hospital and reached their at about 2 p.m. There, as already observed, the Doctor (P.W. 9) Tafheem Haider Kazmi observed their injuries vide his medico‑legal reports and it might have consumed some times. After obtaining medico‑legal reports of the deceased Shams Din and injured P.W. Muhammad. Nawaz the complainant proceeded to lodge the report as already referred and met P.W.14 Muhammad Ashraf S.I. at Chowk Burjiwala Jhang Saddar, where he got recorded his statement (Exh.PB) at about 4 p.m. The accused are named in the F.I.R. Specific role is attributed to each accused played by him and the weapon wielded and used in this occurrence. It is not a case of delayed F.I.R. in these circumstances:" We have no reason to take a different view.

8. It may be seen that time and place of the occurrence has not been disputed by the defence. But in his statement recorded under section s42, Cr.P.C. Liaqat has stated that he was apprehended and taken by Shamsuddin deceased and tied with tree and then beaten and Muhammad Bux came to his rescue. He attacked Shamsuddin and Muhammad Nawaz with a piece of wood. He admitted that Lal and Nasir had also come there but they came later. Thus, presence of the petitioner was admitted by the defence.

9. Regarding the innocence of the petitioner by two Investigating Officers it may be observed that opinion of police officer about guilt or innocence of an offender is irrelevant and inadmissible in evidence. The Courts have to scrutinize the evidence produced by the parties before it and arrive at right conclusions. Courts are not to be influenced by the opinion of Investigating Officers. Opinion of the Investigating Officer plays important role for submitting reports under section 173, Cr.P.C. before the Court but not thereafter.

10. We do not find any infirmity with the impugned judgment passed by a Division Bench of the High Court which may call for interference of this Court. The petition as such is dismissed accordingly. Leave to appeal is refused.‑ N.H.Q./N‑429/S Leave refused.