2001 PLP 2835 (YLR)

(1‑C) A fire‑arm wound 1 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x skin deep on antero‑medial aspect of left upper arm at upper part. (2‑A) A fire‑arm wound of entrance 1 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x going into chest cavity on back of right side of chest (on scapula). Wound edges were inverted and its margins were blackened. (2‑B) A fire‑arm wound of exit 2 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. on front of right side of chest at upper part. Wound edges were averted. (3). A lacerated wound 2.1 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x skin deep on back of left forearm just below elbow‑joint. Note.‑‑‑A metallic piece was recovered from right chest wall under injury Not‑A, which was sealed in a bottle and handed over to the police. In his opinion death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock and injury to vital organs (both lungs) which resulted from injuries Nos. 1‑A, 1‑B, 2‑A and 2‑B which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were found ante‑mortem and were caused by fire‑arm except injury No. 3 which could be caused by a blunt weapon or fire‑arm. The time between injuries and death was within a few minutes whereas between death and post‑mortem examination was 12 to 24 hours. He produced correct carbon copy of post‑mortem examination report Exh. PD, diagram of injuries Exhs. PA/A and X‑Ray film Exh. PA/B. Prosecution also examined P.W.2 Muhammad Arshad, Constable who escorted the dead body of Khalid Mehmood for post- mortem examination and thereafter produced his last‑worn clothes P.1. to P.3. which were secured vide memo. Exh. P.D. P.W.3 Muhammad Younas, H.C. recorded formal F.I.R. Exh. P.E/A on the basis of complaint Exh. P.E. P.W.4 Bilal Ahmad identified the dead body at the time of post‑mortem examination. P.W.5 Jan Muhammad Sabir Merathi, Draftsman prepared site plan Exhs. PF/A & B and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer on 12‑4‑1997. Muhammad Shafi (P.W.6) is a witness of recovery of pistol P.4 which was produced by the accused and secured vide memo. Exh. PG. P.W.7 Noor Din is the complainant who has corroborated his version appearing in complaint Exh. PE. Muhammad Suleman P.W.8 and Abdul Salam P.W.9 are the eye witnesses of this occurrence who have corroborated the prosecution version appearing in complaint Exh. PE. Muhammad Aslam constable P.W.10 was entrusted summons Mark 'A' for service upon Ahmad Khan, S.H.O. but it could not be executed upon him. He produced the report of D.S.P (Legal) Mark 'A'/1 alongwith his own report Mark 'A'/2. Muhammad Mumtaz S. I. P. W. 11 was handed over the investigation of this case on 28‑4‑1997. Prior to his posting Saeed Anwar Khan, S.I. had been posted over there. As such he was conversant with his own handwriting and signatures. He stated that Saeed Anwar Khan, S. I. having been indicted for crime under sections 302/343/148/149, P.P.C. has been declared a proclaimed offender. He produced injury statement P.B., inquest report P.C., memo of recovery of last‑worn clothes of the deceased P.D., complaint Exh. P.E. and rough sketch of place of occurrence P.H. bearing the signatures of Saeed Anwar Khan, S.I. He further stated that on 2‑5‑1997 he arrested the accused who led to the recovery of pistol P.4. which he secured vide memo. Exh. PG. After completing the investigation he challaned the accused. The learned P. P. closed the prosecution evidence vide his statement, dated 29‑9‑1999.

4. The statement of accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the prosecution version and in reply to Question No. 9 stated as follows:‑‑ "I came home to see my parents from .Sheikhupura 20‑25 days before the incident. The deceased was known to me since before. On the eve of the incident, he came to me at my house and took me at a deserted place. He asked me to submit to his unnatural lust, but I refused. He took out a pistol and fired a shot to overawe me saying that he would kill me as he had killed one Tahir Abbas even earlier. He then tried to forcibly denude me of my Shalwar and in that course also deprived me of Rs. 400 which I had with me in my pocket. I caught hold of his hand holding the pistol. He grappled with me. I twisted his arm to the back. He in that condition fired a shot at me but the shot hit in his own back. I did not know that the shot had hit him. He fell down and also fell down the pistol. I picked up the pistol. He stood up and tried to snatch the pistol back from me. I then genuinely apprehended the end of my life at his hands. In order to save my life, my person and my honour, I tired, at him a shot with his pistol. He fell down. I threw the pistol there and disappeared from the scene. It was a dark night incident. None came there during that while. The incident was seen by none. The case was got registered in the morning. I am innocent." He produced documents Exh. D.C. and D.D. and. then closed his defence evidence.

5. After going through the evidence produced by the prosecution as well as defence the learned trial Court convicted the accused under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He was ordered to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation under section 544‑A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased failing which to undergo R.I. for six months. The accused/appellant has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal.

6. Arguments have been heard and record perused.

7. It is evident from the reply to Question No. 9 of statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. that the accused/appellant had admitted the occurrence. However, his stand is that the occurrence has not taken place in the manner in which it has been depicted in complaint Exh. PE but in the manner as disclosed by him in reply to aforementioned Question No. 9.

8. Now even if the statement of the accused is taken into consideration it stands proved that the deceased had died as a result of injuries at the hands of the accused/appellant. The reason given by the accused/appellant for receiving injuries by the deceased does not appeal to reason. It is not possible for a man whose arms have been twisted to inflict injuries on the right and left side of his chest. The injuries on the person of deceased clearly reveal that these have been caused from front side. Thus, the stand of accused/appellant that the deceased received injuries at his own stands belied by the medical evidence which has come on record through the statement of Dr. Muhammad Bashir P.W.1. The other stand of the accused/appellant is that he had tired at the deceased in order to save his life. This contention of the accused/appellant is also devoid of any force as he has not even received a scratch on his person so the question of apprehending. danger at the hands of the deceased does not arise.

9. It .may also be mentioned here that the complainant is not an eye‑witness of this occurrence and was informed about this occurrence by Muhammad Suleman P. W.8 and Abdul Salam P.W.9. Both these P.Ws. have also been cross‑examined at length and they have stood the test of cross‑examination. The evidence of recovery of pistol as well as motive aspect of the prosecution version even if it discarded, the prosecution case stands proved even from the very admission of the accused referred above.

10. For what has been stated above, it is proved that the learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment strictly on the basis of evidence brought on record and it does not require any modification. Accordingly the same is hereby maintained. However, the accused/appellant is extended the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. which has not been extended by the learned trial Court without giving any specific reason for denying the said benefit. N.H.Q./A‑301/L Appeal dismissed.