2004 PLP 909 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents Date of hearing: 27th June, 2002. MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑This petition is directed against judgment dated 18‑1‑2002 of the Lahore High Court whereby, on acceptance of appeal filed by respondents their convictions and sentences under sections 364, 302/34, 148, P.P.C. and award of life imprisonment have been set aside and they have been acquitted of the charges. Respondents alongwith six others were tried for Qatl‑i‑Amd of nephew of petitioner‑complainant, namely Faqir Hussain aged 28 years. According to F.I.R., the occurrence took place on 19‑9‑1997 at 2‑00 p.m. whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 20‑9‑19.97 at 4‑30 p.m. Version given in the F.I.R. was that on 19‑9‑1997 at about 2‑00 p.m. the deceased, Amjad Pervaiz‑P.W.8, present petitioner and Haji Abdul Razaq were going on two motorcycles to spray their standing crops in the field in village Kohal Kalan situated at a distance of 10 K.ms. from their village. When they reached near the Dera of Lal, they were waylaid by the accused persons, who abducted deceased‑Faqir Hussain and also took away his motorcycle. Their case was that they approached the local police for getting a case registered for abduction but it did not pay any heed, therefore, they approached Lumberdar. It was after the dead body, without head, arms and legs was recovered from sugarcane field that they lodged F.I.R. Ocular account of the incident has been given by Amjad Pervaiz P.W.8 and present petitioner. Amjad Pervaiz is Behnooi of the deceased whereas the petitioner is uncle of the deceased. Trial Court, after considering the evidence convicted five of the said accused inclusive of the present respondents and acquitted the other three. Petitioner‑complainant did not file any appeal against the acquittal of the said three accused. The five convicts filed appeal before the High Court, which has been accepted through the impugned judgment, against which leave is sought.

2. Petitioner has chosen not to file petition against acquittal of whereas he has selected the present respondents to file this petition.

3. Learned Judge of the High Court observed that there was no satisfactory explanation as to why no case was got registered regarding abduction of the deceased, which had made the whole story doubtful. Besides, notice was also taken that in the F.I.R. motive alleged was that the present respondents had suspicion that the deceased had illicit relations with their sister‑Mst. Qudrat alias Guddi, whereas P.W.8 when appeared as witness introduced a new story that the deceased had given loan to Lal‑father of the respondents amounting to Rs.50,000 and when he was pressing for its return, they had done him to death. It was observed that if the relations of the two parties were so strained for, the reason that deceased was being suspected for having illicit relations with sister of the respondents, deceased as normal human behaviour would not advance any loan to the father of the respondents.

4. We have also noticed that according to medical evidence, death took place 24 to 48 hours preceding the time of post‑mortem, which was conducted at 8‑30 a.m. on 20‑9‑1997. If the time is calculated according to this opinion, murder must have taken place either on 19‑9‑1997 at 8‑00 a.m. or even on 18‑9‑1997 at the same time.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner when questioned, as to how in these circumstances, when serious doubts had been entertained by the learned Judge of the High Court that the very story of the abduction of the deceased was not stood proved and incident of murder being un witnessed, respondents could be convicted and sentenced on mere suspicion, has no answer.

6. We have satisfied ourselves after examination of the record with able assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner that findings recorded by learned Judge of the High Court are neither perverse nor artificial nor based on misreading or non‑reading of the material piece of evidence.

7. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits, which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. N.H.Q./M‑602/S Leave refused