2003 P Cr (PLP)

5. Lady Doctor Shazia Hanif was examined as C.W.1.

6. The report of the Chemical Examiner Exh.P.K. and that of Serologist Exh.P.L. and of Ballistic Expert Exh.P.M. were tendered in evidence.

7. She and her son Muhammad Tahir pleaded innocence, while Shahid Iqbal had stated that on the day of occurrence at about 10‑45 a.m. he was on the way to his house. He saw Naim‑ul‑Abaad deceased entering the house of Mst. Zahoor Elahi (respondent No.1). He also learnt that his sister Mst. Sajida Perveen was also there in her house. He got infuriated and with gun rushed there. Nobody was present there. He heard hoarsed voice from a locked room there. He opened the door with full force and saw that deceased Naim‑ul‑Abaad holding his Shalwar with one hand and kissing his sister. On his unexpected arrival there, he (deceased) became nervous and raised his hands. In the meanwhile, his Shalwar dropped on the ground. He (accused) facing with this situation became senseless and under grave and sudden provocation fired at the deceased and then at his sister Sajida Paiveen. In the main street he found Mst. Zahoor Elahi coming towards the house having shopper in her hand He also fired at her under the suspicion that she had arranged meeting of Naim‑ul‑Abaad and his sister Mst. Sajida Parveen.

8. He (Shahid Iqbal) produced evidence in his defence. Shahid Hussain as D.W.1 has stated that about 13/14 months ago about 11‑30 a.m. he saw Mst. Zahoor Elahi (respondent No.1) running and Shahid Iqbal fired at her with .12 bore gun hitting her backside and she fell down. He thereafter, went to the house of Mst. Zahoor Elahi and there found the deceased Naim‑ul‑Abaad and a young girl lying in pool of blood. After 1‑1/2 to 2 hours the police reached there. Allah Rakha and Fayyaz P.Ws. reached there a minute or so earlier or later.

9. He also produced the document Mark A to Mark

16. However, they all did not depose on oath in disproof of the allegation appearing against them in the prosecution evidence.

10. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties convicted Shahid Iqbal under section 302(b) read with section 34, P.P.C. for committing Qatl‑e‑Amd of the deceased Naim‑ul‑Abaad and sentenced him to death as Tazeer subject to confirmation by this Court and to pay Rs.1,00,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default thereof to suffer one year's R.I. while Muhammad Tahir under the same i.e. 302(b), P.P.C. to imprisonment for life while acquitted her of the charge.

11. The appellant feeling aggrieved of the impugned judgment to the extent of her acquittal has brought the instant appeal.

12. We nave heard the learned counsel, who has vehemently contended that there is sufficient incriminating evidence on record to connect her with the charge; that the occurrence had taken place in her house; and that according to the evidence the occurrence had taken place on her instance and so she was also liable to be convicted and sentenced as that of her co‑accused.

13. We have carefully considered his submissions and perused the copy of the impugned judgment.

14. The learned trial Court has observed in acquitting her that she has played no role in the commission of Qatl‑e‑Amd of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that as the occurrence had taken place in her house, so she could not be absolved of her liability for the Qatl‑e‑Amd of the deceased.

15. No doubt, the occurrence as has appeared in the prosecution evidence and the statement of her co‑accused Shahid Iqbal had taken place in her house but by same alone she could not be sufficiently and satisfactorily connected with the charge of Qatl‑e‑Amd of the deceased The learned trial Court has also observed that there is nothing incriminating in the statement of the P.Ws. against her. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show us convincingly that it was in fact not so. Anyway, we are certain in our mind that from the entire prosecution evidence on record, it has not been found that she had played any role in the commission of crime constituting abetment of conspiracy on her part.

16. We are, therefore, convinced that the finding of her acquittal is neither perverse nor arbitrary. The learned trial Court appears to have kept in view the evidence on record.

17. So the impugned judgment to the extent of her acquittal is neither absurd nor artificial and fanciful. The instant appeal, therefore, is dismissed summarily as envisaged by section 421, Cr.P.C. H.B.T./A‑845/L Appeal dismissed.